Ashley Murray https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/ We show you the state Thu, 03 Oct 2024 17:23:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://missouriindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/cropped-Social-square-Missouri-Independent-32x32.png Ashley Murray https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/ 32 32 Special counsel Jack Smith reveals new evidence against Trump in 2020 election case https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/03/special-counsel-jack-smith-reveals-new-evidence-against-trump-in-2020-election-case/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/03/special-counsel-jack-smith-reveals-new-evidence-against-trump-in-2020-election-case/#respond Thu, 03 Oct 2024 12:22:28 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=22182

A pro-Trump mob breaks into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a lengthy and partly redacted motion Wednesday that charts special counsel Jack Smith’s final argument before November that former President Donald Trump acted in a private capacity when he co-conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Much of the motion concerns Trump’s interactions with individuals in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as he sought to disrupt election results, Smith alleged.

The document, due on Chutkan’s desk late last month, is central to reanimating the case after months of delay as Trump argued for complete criminal immunity from the government’s fraud and obstruction charges related to his actions after the 2020 presidential contest, which Joe Biden won.

The U.S. Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to Chutkan after ruling that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for acts on the perimeter of official duties, and no immunity for personal ones. At that point it became clear that the case against the Republican presidential nominee would not be tried prior to Election Day.

Smith’s superseding indictment shortly thereafter retained all four felony counts against Trump, and Chutkan is tasked with parsing which allegations can stand in light of the Supreme Court decision.

In his unsealed 165-page motion, Smith outlines Trump’s alleged plots with private lawyers and political allies — names redacted — to ultimately deliver false slates of electors to Congress so that he appeared the winner over Biden in the seven states.

“Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted — a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” Smith wrote.

Trump slammed the court filing on social media in numerous posts, writing in a mix of upper and lowercase letters that “Democrats are Weaponizing the Justice Department against me because they know I am WINNING, and they are desperate to prop up their failing Candidate, Kamala Harris.”

“The DOJ pushed out this latest ‘hit job’ today because JD Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night in the Debate. The DOJ has become nothing more than an extension of Joe’s, and now Kamala’s, Campaign. This is egregious PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, and should not have been released right before the Election,” he continued in just one of his many reactions on his platform, Truth Social.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, faced Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, in a vice presidential debate on Tuesday night.

Here are key arguments from Smith’s filing, which alleges efforts by Trump and allies to subvert voters’ will during the last presidential election:

Arizona

Smith detailed calls to and communications with various Arizona officials, including the governor and speaker of the Arizona state House, arguing the interactions were made in Trump’s “capacity as a candidate.”

  • “The defendant and his co-conspirators also demonstrated their deliberate disregard for the truth — and thus their knowledge of falsity — when they repeatedly changed the numbers in their baseless fraud allegations from day to day. At trial, the Government will introduce several instances of this pattern, in which the defendant and conspirators’ lies were proved by the fact that they made up figures from whole cloth. One example concerns the defendant and conspirators’ claims about non-citizen voters in Arizona. The conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona; five days later, it was ‘beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote’: three weeks later, ‘the bare minimum [was] 40 or 50,000. The reality is about 250,000’; days after that, the assertion was 32,000; and ultimately the conspirators landed back where they started at 36,000 — a false figure that they never verified or corroborated.”

Georgia

Smith plans to introduce into evidence Trump’s communications, in his personal capacity, with Georgia’s attorney general, including a call on Dec. 8, 2020, and to the secretary of state.

  • Trump “had early notice that his claims of election fraud in Georgia were false. Around mid-November, Campaign advisor [redacted] told the defendant that his claim that a large number of dead people had voted in Georgia was false. The defendant continued to press the claim anyway, including in a press appearance on November 29, when he suggested that a large enough number of dead voters had cast ballots to change the outcome of the election in Georgia.”
  • “In the post-election period, [redacted] also took on the role of updating the defendant on a near-daily basis on the Campaign’s unsuccessful efforts to support any fraud claims…. He told the defendant that if the Campaign took these claims to court, they would get slaughtered, because the claims are all ‘bullshit.’ [Redacted] was privy in real time to the findings of the two expert consulting firms the Campaign retained to investigate fraud claims — [redacted] and [redacted] — and discussed with the defendant their debunkings on all major claims. For example, [redacted] told the defendant that Georgia’s audit disproved claims that [redacted] had altered votes.”

Michigan

The document details an Oval Office meeting Trump held with Michigan’s Senate majority leader and speaker of the House on Nov. 20, 2020, during which Trump tried to acquire evidence of voter fraud in Detroit.

  • “Despite failing to establish any valid fraud claims, [redacted] followed up with [redacted] and [redacted] and attempted to pressure them to use the Michigan legislature to overturn the valid election result.”

Michigan and Pennsylvania

The filing said that directly following the 2020 election, Trump and his “private operatives sought to create chaos, rather than seek clarity, at polling places where states were continuing to tabulate votes.”

  • “For example, on November 4, [redacted]—a Campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant—tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, looked unfavorable for the defendant.”
  • “When a colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot, a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, [redacted] responded ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!’ The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.”

Michigan voting machines

Smith will argue that Trump, outside his official presidential duties, tried to persuade political allies in Michigan to sway the election in his favor.

  • Among the evidence he will introduce: The former president held a meeting, “private in nature,” with Michigan legislators at the White House.
  • Smith also wrote that “In mid-December, the defendant spoke with RNC Chairwoman [redacted] and asked her to publicize and promote a private report that had been related on December 13 that purported to identify flaws in the use of [redacted] machines in Antrim County, Michigan. [Redacted] refused, telling the defendant that she already had discussed this report with [redacted] Michigan’s Speaker of the House, who had told her that the report was inaccurate. [Redacted] conveyed to the defendant [redacted] exact assessment: the report was ‘f—— nuts.’”

Nevada

In Nevada, Trump allegedly ignored warnings about spreading lies about the state’s election results. Smith wrote: “Notwithstanding the RNC Chief Counsel’s warning, the defendant re-tweeted and amplified news of the lawsuit on November 24, calling it ‘Big News!’ that a Nevada Court had agreed to hear it. But the defendant did not similarly promote the fact that within two weeks, on December 4, the Nevada District Court dismissed Law v. Whitmer, finding in a detailed opinion that ‘there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud,’ including through the signature-match machines, and that Biden won the election in the state.”

  • Trump continued to repeat false claims in tweets and speeches “as a candidate, not as an office holder,” Smith wrote.

Pennsylvania 

In the Keystone State, officials warned Trump there was no smoke and no fire related to election fraud in the commonwealth, Smith wrote.

  • “Two days after the election, on November 6, the defendant called [redacted], the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party—the entity responsible for supporting Republican candidates in the commonwealth at the federal, state and local level. [Redacted] had a prior relationship with the defendant, including having represented him in litigation in Pennsylvania after the 2016 presidential election. The defendant asked [redacted] how, without fraud, he had gone from winning Pennsylvania on election day to trailing in the day afterward. Consistent with what Campaign staff already had told the defendant, [redacted] confirmed that it was not fraud; it was that there were roughly 1,750,000 mail-in ballots still being counted in Pennsylvania, which were expected to be eighty percent for Biden. Over the following two months, the defendant spread false claims of fraud in Pennsylvania anyway.”
  • “In early November, in a Campaign meeting, when the defendant suggested that more people in Pennsylvania voted than had checked in to vote, Deputy Campaign Manager [redacted] corrected him.”

Wisconsin

Smith wrote Trump ignored reality in Wisconsin as well.

  • “On November 29, a recount that the defendant’s campaign had petitioned and paid for confirmed that Biden had won in Wisconsin — and increased the defendant’s margin of defeat. On December 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the Campaign’s election lawsuit there. As a result, on December 21, Wisconsin’s Governor signed a certificate of final determination confirming the prior certificate of ascertainment that established Biden’s electors as the valid electors for the state.”

Trump responded by rebuking the Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who had signed the majority opinion that rejected the lawsuit, forcing the state marshals responsible for the judge’s security to enhance protection due to a rise in “threatening communications.”

Fake electors 

Smith alleged that as Trump and co-conspirators faltered at overturning states’ official election results, they turned their attention to fake slates of electors.

As early as December 2020, Trump and his allies “developed a new plan regarding targeted states that the defendant had lost (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin): to organize the people who would have served as the defendant’s electors had he won the popular vote, and cause them to sign and send to Pence, as President of the Senate, certificates in which they falsely represent themselves as legitimate electors who had cast electoral votes for the defendant,” Smith wrote.

Trump and his allies lied to Vice President Mike Pence heading toward Jan. 6, “telling him that there was substantial election fraud and concealing their orchestration of the plan to manufacture fraudulent elector slates, as well as their intention to use the fake slates to attempt to obstruct the congressional certification.”

Trump’s alleged lies to Pence and the public “created a tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6.”

The filing details numerous people, including Trump, pressuring Pence for weeks to use his role overseeing Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote to overturn the election results.

On the morning of Jan. 6, Pence, once again, told Trump he would not go along with the plan.

“So on January 6, the defendant sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters, whom the defendant had called to the city and inundated with false claims of outcome-determinative election fraud, to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral vote and to obstruct the certification.”

“Although the attack on the Capitol successfully delayed the certification for approximately six hours, the House and Senate resumed the Joint Session at 11:35 p.m. But the conspirators were not done.”

The filing alleges a co-conspirator once again urged Pence to “violate the law” by delaying the certification for 10 days. He refused.

Pressure on Pence

Smith must prove that Trump’s pressure on Pence was outside of their official duties together, and therefore can not be considered immune from prosecution.

Smith plans to introduce evidence of private phone calls and conversations between Trump and his VP, including some with campaign staff, essentially tying their interactions to their interests as those seeking office again, “as running mates in the post-election period.” Smith also plans to highlight that Pence’s role in certifying the election was largely ceremonial and within the realm of the Senate, and strictly outside the bounds of the Oval Office.  Among Smith’s points made in his motion:

  • “Because the Vice President’s role is and has always been ministerial, rather than substantive or discretionary, it is difficult to imagine an occasion in which a President would have any valid reason to try to influence it. As such, criminalizing a President’s efforts to affect the Vice President’s role as the President of the Senate overseeing the certification of Electoral College results would not jeopardize an Executive Branch function or authority.”
]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/03/special-counsel-jack-smith-reveals-new-evidence-against-trump-in-2020-election-case/feed/ 0
Trump describes traumatic brain injuries sustained by U.S. troops in Iraq as a ‘headache’ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/02/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-by-u-s-troops-in-iraq-as-a-headache/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/02/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-by-u-s-troops-in-iraq-as-a-headache/#respond Wed, 02 Oct 2024 20:37:57 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=22180

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to attendees during a campaign rally at the Mosack Group warehouse on September 25, 2024 in Mint Hill, North Carolina (Brandon Bell/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump said Tuesday that U.S. troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries after Iranian rocket fire in Iraq in 2020 only experienced a “headache,” dismissing the experiences of dozens of American soldiers who were later awarded the Purple Heart.

Trump’s comments came after a reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, asked whether he should “have been tougher on Iran” after that nation launched ballistic missiles on Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq in January 2020, during Trump’s presidency. A couple thousand U.S. troops remain on an anti-ISIS mission at the Iraqi air base, one of the largest during the U.S. invasion.

“First of all, injured, what does injured mean? Injured means, you mean, because they had a headache because the bombs never hit the fort?” Trump responded.

“If you were a truthful reporter, which you’re not, you would tell the following: None of those very accurate missiles hit our fort. They all hit outside, and there was nobody hurt, other than the sound was loud, and some people said that hurt, and I accept that,” Trump continued.

Trump added that Iran did “a very nice thing” by missing the military base. Photographs taken after the attack show extensive damage on the base.

U.S. troops at the base, that housed roughly 2,000 soldiers at the time, were given notice to shelter in bunkers. The missiles carried warheads weighing well over 1,000 pounds, leaving impact craters that spanned several feet wide, according to CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and The Washington Post.

While no troops were killed in the attack, hundreds were exposed to blast waves, and many were evacuated to Germany for medical care. Weeks later, more than 100 troops were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. Dozens were eventually awarded the Purple Heart, including one retired major interviewed by States Newsroom in May.

Soldiers described lasting effects from those injuries as including chronic migraines, vertigo, short-term memory issues and vision impairment.

Trump’s comments Tuesday came as he took questions from the press after delivering wide-ranging remarks at a campaign event at the Discovery World Science Museum on the city’s lakefront.

The reporter did not identify herself before asking her question. Trump’s remarks were recorded in full by the local Fox affiliate and live streamed by the Trump-focused YouTube channel “Right Side Broadcasting Network.”

Details of attack

This is not the first time Trump has downplayed the soldiers’ experiences and injuries stemming from that specific attack.

Iran fired 16 ballistic missiles at the air base and another Iraqi military site between Jan. 7 and 8, 2020. Roughly a dozen landed, according to reports. The attack was in retaliation for a U.S. strike days earlier in Baghdad that killed top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.

The 2020 attack on the base has been well documented. Images taken by photographers with National Public Radio and The Washington Post showed damaged buildings on the base. The New York Times and The Associated Press compiled video footage and compared satellite images before and after the attack.

CBS News’ “60 Minutes” aired drone footage of the attack and first-hand accounts from troops who described the experience in a nearly 14-minute news package for the television magazine program.

The National Institutes of Health collected medical data from nearly 40 soldiers for months after the attack and found persistent symptoms following concussions.

Military installations that still house U.S. troops in Iraq have been the target of Iranian attacks following the outbreak of violence on Oct. 7 when the Hamas militant group, one of Iran’s allies, launched a deadly surprise incursion into southern Israel, sparking a year-long war that has also drawn in Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants, according to the Pentagon.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/02/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-by-u-s-troops-in-iraq-as-a-headache/feed/ 0
U.S. government unveils charges against Iranians who hacked into Trump 2024 campaign  https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-government-unveils-charges-against-iranians-who-hacked-into-trump-2024-campaign/ Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:58:56 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=22129

The Department of Justice on Friday unsealed an indictment detailing a yearslong hacking scheme by Iran that targeted the 2024 presidential campaign of former President Donald Trump. In this photo, Trump speaks on May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming. (Chet Strange/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. law enforcement on Friday announced charges against three Iranians who allegedly stole materials from former President Donald Trump’s campaign and tried to pass them to news media and Democrats in an attempt to influence the 2024 election.

The Department of Justice unsealed the indictment detailing a yearslong hacking scheme by Iran that targeted the email accounts of U.S. government officials, journalists, think tank experts, and most recently the 2024 presidential campaigns.

“The defendants’ own words make clear that they were attempting to undermine former President Trump’s campaign in advance of the 2024 U.S. presidential election,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a Friday press conference. Prosecutors believe the defendants acted from Iran and were never in the U.S.

“We know that Iran is continuing its brazen efforts to stoke discord, erode confidence in the U.S. electoral process and advance its malign activities for the (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), a designated foreign terrorist organization,” Garland said.

The unsealed indictment in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia came three days after Trump’s campaign revealed the former president was briefed by the U.S. intelligence officials about “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate him,” according to a statement Tuesday from Steven Cheung, the campaign’s communications director.

“Big threats on my life by Iran,” Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, posted on X Wednesday. Trump suggested at a campaign stop in Mint Hill, North Carolina, that Iran could be responsible for two assassination attempts on him.

The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not published a statement on the matter. Its most recent press release focuses on the Iranian plot to hack Trump’s campaign.

‘It takes two to tango’ 

Global politics continued to top the U.S. presidential election headlines Friday when Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Trump Tower after announcing the invitation late Thursday at a meandering press conference where he promised, if elected, to strike a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia “quite quickly.”

The pair met behind closed doors in Trump’s New York City skyscraper on the sidelines of this week’s United Nations General Assembly, and one day after Zelenskyy traveled to Washington to meet with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden and bipartisan lawmakers.

“After November we have to decide, and we hope that the strengths of the United States will be very strong, and we count on it. That’s why I decided to meet with both candidates,” Zelenskyy said during brief joint comments alongside Trump ahead of the meeting.

Trump, who refused during a live presidential debate to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win its war with Russia, detoured from that stance and hinted Friday that he wants a victory for the Western ally.

“I think the fact that we’re even together today is a very good sign, and hopefully we’ll have a good victory, because (if) the other side wins, I don’t think you’re gonna have victories with anything to be honest with you,” Trump said during the joint remarks.

During the exchange, Trump highlighted his “very good relationship” with Putin and said he could settle the war “very quickly.”

“But you know, it takes two to tango,” he said.

Harris at the border

Harris traveled to the U.S. southern border Friday to stump for a bipartisan border security deal that collapsed in early 2024 shortly after Trump publicly lambasted it.

Harris was scheduled to deliver what her campaign billed as a major speech in the border town of Douglas, Arizona, where she planned to talk about setting and enforcing new immigration rules at the border, according to a senior campaign official.

“Donald Trump cares more about self-interest than solutions. He wants a problem to run on, not a fix for the American people,”  Harris campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said in a statement Friday.

“When he was president, Trump created chaos at the border, taking our already broken immigration system and making it worse – leaving behind a mess for the Biden-Harris administration to clean up. Americans deserve a president who puts national security over their own self-interest – that’s Kamala Harris,” the statement continued.

Trump is attacking Harris over border crossings into the U.S. — his central campaign issue — and calling her by the dishonest nickname “border czar” and claiming she caused the “worst border crisis in the history of the world.”

“When you look at the four years that have taken place after being named ‘border czar,’ Kamala Harris will be visiting the southern border that she has completely destroyed,” Trump said at his Thursday press conference.

Biden, in February 2021, tasked Harris with strategizing ways to fight the “root cause” of migration from Central American countries, including economic insecurity, government corruption and gender-based violence.

Trump has historically painted with a broad brush the complex issue of immigration at the U.S. southern border, announcing his first presidential campaign in 2015 by describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists.” During his own presidency in 2018 he warned of immigrant “caravans” crossing into the U.S. from Mexico. He has promised mass deportations if elected in November.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security publicly releases numbers of border encounters, apprehensions and expulsions.

Back on the trail

The presidential and vice presidential candidates are scheduled to make the following appearances:

  • Harris will deliver a speech in Douglas, Arizona, Friday.
  • Trump is scheduled to deliver remarks in Walker, Michigan Friday, followed by a town hall in Warren, Michigan.
  • Trump is expected to attend the Alabama-Georgia football game on Saturday in Tuscaloosa, the University of Alabama, as confirmed by States Newsroom last week.
  • Not to be outdone on the college football scene, Harris’ running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is scheduled to attend the Michigan-Minnesota football game Saturday in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  • Harris will head to Las Vegas, Nevada, Sunday for a campaign rally.
  • Trump will also host a rally Sunday, this time in Erie, Pennsylvania.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
Taxes: Where do Trump and Harris stand? https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/27/taxes-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/27/taxes-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand/#respond Fri, 27 Sep 2024 18:37:49 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=22078

With many 2017 tax cuts expiring and cost of living a major challenge for Americans, tax policy has become a central issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. (Phillip Rubino/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — With the clock ticking on former President Donald Trump’s signature 2017 tax law, and high housing, food and child care costs darkening Americans’ mood, tax cuts have become the star of the 2024 presidential contest between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump wants to overall extend his tax provisions beyond the 2025 expiration date and then some, promising to lower the corporate tax rate even further and lift the cap on the state and local taxes deduction.

He argues the loss in federal revenue will be made up by imposing steep tariffs on imported goods.

Tariff is a “beautiful word,” he told a crowd in Savannah, Georgia, Tuesday night, “one of the most beautiful words I’ve ever heard.”

“We will take in hundreds of billions of dollars into our treasury and use that money to benefit the American citizens,” he said.

Harris is running on an “opportunity economy” platform that keeps the Biden administration’s promises to not raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 and enact a “billionaire” tax.

The vice president has also vowed to give tax deductions and credits to budding entrepreneurs and first-time homebuyers, and permanently expand the Child Tax Credit.

“Under my plan, more than 100 million Americans will get a middle-class tax break that includes $6,000 for new parents during the first year of their child’s life,” Harris said Wednesday at a campaign speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Whoever wins the Oval Office will need a cooperative Congress to enact these policies — with the exception of tariffs, over which the president enjoys wide latitude.

What would it cost?

The barrage of proposals has kept economists busy with near-constant and evolving analyses of how much the tax cut promises would add to the nation’s ballooning federal deficit and change the economy.

Both candidates’ plans come with a price tag in the trillions of dollars, though Trump’s is the more expensive of the two.

Models released in late August by the Penn Wharton Budget Model project Trump’s plan would add up to $5.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, while Harris’ plan would increase the deficit by up to $2 trillion over the same time period.

“I think that both candidates are missing the mark when it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic responsibility,” the Tax Foundation’s Erica York told States Newsroom in an interview Monday.

“Neither of them have really outlined a plan that would get us on a sustainable path in terms of debt and deficits, nor that would boost growth and opportunity in the economy. Both are likely to have a negative impact on the economy,” said York, senior economist and research director for the foundation, which generally favors lower taxes.

Promise: No taxes on tips, overtime

Trump, followed by Harris, has proposed to nix taxes on tipped workers — though Harris has suggested limiting the benefit to workers in the service and hospitality industries who earn less than $75,000.

She has also said the tax break would not apply to payroll taxes, meaning the contribution workers pay toward Social Security and Medicare. Trump has not detailed any limits on his proposal for tipped workers.

Economists across the board warn Trump’s plan could incentivize more tipped work. They also question whether Trump and Harris’ proposals would actually benefit low-income workers.

After all, tax benefits for lower income workers who have children phase in as the person earns income. Reporting less income means those taxpayers could ultimately see less help from the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit.

“If you work and you report income, you get these provisions. But if you don’t, you don’t get these provisions. Well, you add exemptions into the tax code that reduces the amount of earned income that you report to the IRS, you could potentially reduce the value of these credits for very low-income households,” Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, told States Newsroom in an interview Monday.

For instance, a tipped worker who has one child and earns $24,000 annually, half of which comes from tips, could see a $300 decrease in refundable tax credits under this policy, Pomerleau and senior AEI fellows Alex Brill and Stan Veuger wrote in August.

The same principle for lower income taxpayers applies to Trump’s recent promise to eliminate taxes on overtime.

“There could be a negative effect there, depending on how this is structured,” Pomerleau said Monday.

The nonpartisan watchdog Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates an elimination of taxes on all overtime would cost the country $1.7 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years. With no guardrails preventing workers switching from salaried to hourly, the price tag could reach up to $6 trillion in the most extreme case, CRFB estimates.

Promise: No taxes on Social Security

Economists monitoring the nation’s Social Security coffers continue to sound alarm bells on the program’s solvency — with little reaction on the campaign trail.

The fund that provides money to senior citizens and people with disabilities is on track to be depleted by 2035, and recipients would face an immediate 17% cut in benefits, as the Tax Foundation’s Alex Durante wrote Tuesday.

Trump has mentioned Social Security during campaign rallies and on his social media platform, but in the context of eliminating taxes on the benefit payments.

While low-income recipients do not pay taxes on their benefits, others do and are projected to contribute $94 billion this year back into the fund.

Nixing those taxes could speed up Social Security’s insolvency by one year, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Promise: New corporate tax rates and tariffs

Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cleared Congress strictly along party lines, permanently lowered the top corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%.

Harris has vowed, if elected, she will bump the rate up to 28%. Analyses from the CFRB, the Tax Foundation, Penn Wharton and the Yale Budget Lab estimate the increase would raise roughly $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion in federal revenue over the next decade.

The former president wants to cut the rate even further to 15%, a level not seen in the U.S. since the 1930s. Economists estimate the cut would reduce revenue anywhere from $460 billion to $673 billion over 10 years.

“Here is the deal that I will be offering to every major company and manufacturer on Earth: I will give you the lowest taxes, the lowest energy costs, the lowest regulatory burden and free access to the best and biggest market on the planet, but only if you make your product here in America,” Trump said in Georgia Tuesday.

Trump has big plans for products imported into the U.S. He’s planning to impose up to 20% tariffs on most imports, reaching as high as 60% on Chinese goods and 100% on countries that turn away from the U.S. dollar.

That could cost the typical American household about $2,600 a year as costs on consumer goods would shift to the customer, particularly affecting those with lower incomes, according to economists Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Speaking at a farming roundtable in Pennsylvania Monday, Trump publicly warned John Deere that if the company moves manufacturing to Mexico, he’ll impose a 200% tariff on tractors coming back over the border.

Experts warn another downside is that the policy invites foreign retaliation.

“So if we are, say, exporting Kentucky bourbon to China, China may say, well, to retaliate for the 60% tax on imports, we’re going to place taxes on this export, and that’s going to have a direct impact on the incomes of Americans and make us poorer,” Pomerleau said.

Promise: A billionaire tax

A familiar refrain from Harris and the Biden administration is that billionaires and wealthy corporations should pay their “fair share.”

The U.S. individual tax rate already progresses with an earner’s income, meaning that the higher your income, the higher your tax rate.

Both Harris and Trump want to keep individual tax rates that were lowered across the board in the 2017 law, but Harris is seeking to increase taxes on long-term capital gains, and levy a minimum tax on unrealized capital gains for very high earners.

For those earning upwards of $1 million a year, Harris proposed raising taxes to 28%, up from 20%, on profits made from the sale of an asset, like stocks, bonds, or real estate, that have been held by the owner for more than a year.

The vice president also proposes quadrupling the stock buyback tax to 4%, up from 1%.

For ultra-wealthy households that have more than $100 million in assets, Harris follows Biden in proposing a 25% tax rate — sometimes referred to as the “billionaire tax.”

Those high-wealth individuals would need to calculate their regular income tax liability and compare it to their total net worth, meaning income plus unrealized capital gains, multiplied by 25%.

“Whichever is greater you pay,” Pomerleau explains. “So if you are in a situation where you have a low effective tax rate relative to this broader definition of income, the minimum tax will kick in and you’ll start paying increments.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the plan could raise $750 billion in revenue over ten years.

Promise: No SALT cap

Ahead of a mid-September campaign rally on Long Island, New York, Trump pledged to abandon the cap in his 2017 law on the state and local tax deduction — simply known in tax parlance as SALT.

As the law stands now, taxpayers can only deduct up to $10,000 of their state and local tax bill from their federal tax liability.

A full SALT deduction is more valuable for higher income taxpayers, and prior to the 2017 cap, 91% of taxpayers who claimed it lived in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Pennsylvania, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

Eliminating the cap would cut taxes by an average of more than $140,000 for the highest earning 0.1% of households, according to modeling by the Tax Policy Center, a collaboration between the left-leaning Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.

The Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates the move could cost $1.2 trillion over a ten-year budget window.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/27/taxes-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand/feed/ 0
Zelenskyy in Washington meets with U.S. leaders to beef up support for Ukraine https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/26/zelenskyy-in-washington-meets-with-u-s-leaders-to-beef-up-support-for-ukraine/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/26/zelenskyy-in-washington-meets-with-u-s-leaders-to-beef-up-support-for-ukraine/#respond Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:49:44 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=22102

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, center, walks with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., right, and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., left to a closed-door meeting Thursday at the U.S. Capitol. (Tom Brenner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Standing alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris rejected any suggestion that Ukraine should end its war by relinquishing territory to Russia.

Zelenskyy and Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, met for the seventh time during Harris’ tenure as vice president as the Ukrainian leader visited the White House and U.S. Capitol.

Zelenskyy is expected to meet in New York on Friday morning with former President Donald Trump, who said in a press conference late Thursday he would be able to “make a deal” between Ukraine and Russia “quite quickly.”

“I don’t want to tell you what that looks like,” said Trump, the GOP nominee, who is locked in a tight race with Harris for the Oval Office.

Zelenskyy’s Thursday meetings included a separate one-on-one with President Joe Biden, to shore up continued support as the United States faces the possibility of a shift in power after the quickly approaching 2024 election.

Harris proclaimed the need for “order and stability in our world,” and reiterated her pledge to work with NATO allies to defend Ukraine from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022 nearly a decade after forceably annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.

“Nothing about the end of this war can be decided without Ukraine,” Harris said in comments livestreamed on C-SPAN.

“However, in candor, I share with you, Mr. President, there are some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations,” Harris continued during brief joint remarks with Zelenskyy to the press. “These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”

Harris delivered the comments one day after Trump told a rally crowd in North Carolina that Biden and Harris “allowed” the ongoing war by “feeding Zelenskyy money and munitions like no country has ever seen before.”

United Nations

Zelenskyy’s Washington visits came as the United Nations General Assembly gathered this week in New York City, where Zelenskyy again communicated to world leaders that he wants “territorial integrity” for his nation.

Zelenskyy and Biden met in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon, where they discussed the Ukrainian leader’s “victory plan,” which requests U.S. authority to launch Western missiles deeper inside Russia’s borders.

“Your determination is incredibly important for us to prevail,” Zelenskyy told Biden in front of reporters.

In brief joint remarks to the press, Biden said “I see two key pieces. First, right now, we have to strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield.”

Biden announced the release of $7.9 billion that Congress appropriated for Ukraine and ordered any remaining money to be allocated by his last day in office, Jan. 20, 2025.

“This will strengthen Ukraine’s position in future negotiations,” Biden said.

Ukraine is expected to request more assistance from the U.S. in the coming months.

The U.S. has directed more than $59.3 billion in security assistance since Biden took office, the vast majority of which was committed after Russia’s invasion, according to Pentagon figures. Overall U.S. foreign assistance to Ukraine since 2022 has totaled roughly $175 billion.

Biden, Harris and Zelenskyy did not answer reporters’ shouted questions following their respective meetings.

Zelenskyy goes to Capitol Hill, again

Zelenskyy began Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill, splitting time with Senate and House lawmakers, absent U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson.

The meetings occurred less than 24 hours after Johnson wrote a letter to Zelenskyy demanding he fire Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. for organizing a trip for the Ukrainian president alongside Democrats to Pennsylvania, a key swing state in the 2024 presidential election.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro led Zelenskyy on a tour Sunday of an ammunition plant in Scranton. They were joined by Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Matt Cartwright, both Pennsylvania Democrats up for reelection.

“The facility was in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because — on purpose — no Republicans were invited. The tour was clearly a partisan campaign event designed to help Democrats and is clearly election interference,” Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wrote.

Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, opened an investigation Wednesday into the “misuse of government resources that allowed Zelensky to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

Lawmakers exiting the meetings told reporters Zelenskyy did not comment on Johnson’s letter but rather spoke about the war effort and Ukraine’s desire to use long-range missiles to target military assets farther into Russia.

Republican Sen. John Boozman, who sits on the U.S. Helsinki Commission, told reporters “the more damage we can do, the sooner, the better off we are.”

“It’s to the Russians’ advantage if this thing drags on forever,” said Boozman, of Arkansas.

When asked by reporters if Biden should give permission to Zelenskyy to strike deeper into Russia, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said, “I hope he will.”

Bennet, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told reporters he would not repeat “anything that anybody else said in that room,” but said he “didn’t hear” any concern over fears of stoking Russia, a nuclear power, to retaliate against NATO allies.

Rep. Joe Wilson, chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, told reporters the meeting with Zelenskyy was “positive” and reiterated his support for a Ukrainian victory.

He chalked up Johnson’s absence to a possible “scheduling” issue.

Wilson, who also co-chairs the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, said he’s “confident things are going to work out” regarding Johnson’s rebuke of Zelenskyy. Wilson then quickly pivoted to praising Trump’s approval of a 2017 sale of U.S. weapons to Ukraine.

When pressed by States Newsroom on Trump’s refusal to say whether he wants Ukraine to win the war, Wilson defended the former president.

“I defer to President Trump, but I again, I have so much appreciation that it was Donald Trump that tried to avoid all of this,” the South Carolina Republican said.

Trump was impeached by the U.S. House in 2019, but acquitted by the Senate, for threatening to withhold security assistance for Ukraine unless Zelenskyy publicly announced an investigation into Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election, which the former vice president under Barack Obama won.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/26/zelenskyy-in-washington-meets-with-u-s-leaders-to-beef-up-support-for-ukraine/feed/ 0
Trump immunity decision splits U.S. Senate panel along partisan lines https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/trump-immunity-decision-splits-u-s-senate-panel-along-partisan-lines/ Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:35:22 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=22011

Former President Donald Trump walks to speak to the media after being found guilty of state felony business falsification charges on May 30, 2024, in New York City. (Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Stark polarization was on display Tuesday as U.S. senators argued whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision effectively crowns the president “a king” or aligns with the history of the office.

In the first congressional hearing on the court’s July decision, lawmakers on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary debated and questioned witnesses on the historic 6-3 opinion that granted presidents criminal immunity for core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” actions. Personal acts are not immune, the court ruled.

Committee Chair Dick Durbin of Illinois lamented the high court has now “made it nearly impossible for the courts to hold a runaway president accountable.”

“It will be left to the American people and Congress to hold the line, because as Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor noted in her dissent, ‘the President is now a king above the law,’” the Democratic senator said in his opening statement.

Ranking Republican member Lindsey Graham dismissed the Democratic-led hearing as “designed to continue an attack on the court.”

“This hearing is about a continued narrative of delegitimizing the court you don’t like. We’ll see how this holds up over time,” said Graham of South Carolina.

A contentious decision

The Supreme Court issued its immunity decision in the thick of the roller coaster 2024 presidential election campaign — just one month after former President Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felonies in New York, the only of his four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump, who is locked in a close race with Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election polls, escalated his presidential immunity claim to the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three conservative justices while in office. At the time, he was leading against President Joe Biden, who exited the race in late July.

Trump argued he could not be prosecuted on federal fraud and obstruction charges for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The Supreme Court remanded the election subversion case to the trial court to decide which charges can still stand in light of the immunity decision.

Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith issued a superseding indictment soon after that retained all four felony charges, but omitted all supporting accusations that Trump allegedly pressured the Department of Justice to intimidate state officials to manipulate the 2020 election results.

Graham downplayed Smith’s case as well as the now-dismissed federal case alleging Trump improperly stored and refused to return classified information after he left office as “politically motivated legal garbage.”

Graham also criticized the Georgia state 2020 election interference case against Trump and the New York state conviction of Trump for falsifying business records related to a porn star hush money payment ahead of the 2016 election.

A license for abuse?

Three witnesses invited to testify before the Democratic-led panel warned the immunity decision could lead to sweeping consequences for U.S. democracy and accused the court of abandoning long-standing guardrails on executive power.

Granting protection from criminal exposure “essentially licenses a president to abuse his power and get away with it,” said Philip Allen Lacovara, former U.S. deputy solicitor general and former counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor.

The court did “not rely on any historical practice in favor of criminal immunity,” Lacovara testified. “In fact, practice is exactly the opposite.

“I know from my own experience in the Watergate affair that President Nixon was under active criminal investigation for his role in the cover-up.”

Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law School, agreed with the court that the president should be protected for powers defined by the Constitution, including pardoning and vetoing.

But, she said, her concern is that the court’s opinion “capaciously defines core constitutional powers to extend far beyond these well recognized powers.”

“The majority holds that the former president is absolutely immune for alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

“That conduct includes the indictment’s allegations about efforts to leverage the Justice Department to convince certain states to replace their legitimate electors with fraudulent Trump slates of electors,” said McCord, who served in the Justice Department during the Obama and Trump administrations.

McCord also questioned how criminal immunity would guide a future president’s interactions with other government arms, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Central Intelligence Agency.

“The reforms enacted by Congress in the wake of past abuses would be impotent in the case of a president unconcerned about adhering to the rule of law,” she said.

Timothy Naftali, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, reminded the committee of Nixon’s investigation of Jewish members of the government, as revealed in his preserved recorded conversations.

“As we assess the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision to remove additional guardrails from the presidency, I suggest we consider some events of the year 1971 and a few other well documented episodes of presidential abuse of power,” said Naftali, the former founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Immunity as necessary

Witnesses invited by the panel’s GOP minority dismissed concerns about presidential immunity as overblown.

Jennifer Mascott, director of the Separation of Powers Institute and associate professor of law at The Catholic University of America, said “since the court handed down this opinion, a number of public statements and commentary have significantly mischaracterized the opinion’s holding and its scope.”

“Some of those overstatements have made their way into some of the prepared testimony before the committee today,” she continued.

Republicans reiterated that presidential criminal immunity keeps the lid on a “Pandora’s box” of political retaliation against former administrations via the courts.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, ranking member of the committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, entertained the scenario that a district attorney in a Republican-held jurisdiction could sue Biden once he leaves office for the withdrawal from Afghanistan during which 13 U.S. service members were killed.

“Can you imagine a scenario in which an ambitious district attorney after President Biden’s out of office could bring a charge against President, former President Biden for criminal negligence in the death of Americans?” he asked.

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under former President George W. Bush, said the court’s ruling was “narrow, consistent with precedent and constitutional principles.”

“I think if one examines the historical record of controversial acts by presidents, it would be dangerous — particularly although not exclusively as to acts that impact national security such as border or drug enforcement — to subject presidents to the constant threat of prosecution for official acts when they leave office,” Mukasey said.

He used the examples of former President Barack Obama’s drone killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s World War II internment of Japanese Americans.

“And even more pointedly, I doubt that many people think that our country would be better off if President Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton or Obama were prosecuted or imprisoned for controversial decisions they made in office,” Mukasey said.

Lack of court ethics to blame?

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chair of the Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights Subcommittee, blamed a lack of an enforceable ethics code on the court and “creepy right-wing billionaires” for influencing justices’ decisions.

The court has been rocked by revelations that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas did not disclose gifts and luxury travel from Republican donors. The justices have not faced repercussions, and the donors deny any improper actions.

“The Trump justices invented presidential immunity and then didn’t even carve out treason,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. “The first mention ever that a president can freely commit crimes comes from this court, just as we have our first ever criminal presidential candidate.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
Racing toward Election Day, control of U.S. Senate and House up for grabs https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/20/racing-toward-election-day-control-of-u-s-senate-and-house-up-for-grabs/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/20/racing-toward-election-day-control-of-u-s-senate-and-house-up-for-grabs/#respond Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:23:17 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21924

Recent projections tilt in favor of Republicans taking the U.S. Senate, an already closely divided chamber that is sure to be near evenly split again next Congress (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The country’s next president will need a friendly Congress to make their policy dreams a reality, but control of the two chambers remains deeply uncertain with just weeks until Election Day — and whether the outcome will be a party trifecta in the nation’s capital.

Recent projections tilt in favor of Republicans taking the U.S. Senate, an already closely divided chamber that is sure to be near evenly split again next Congress.

And though Vice President Kamala Harris injected a jolt of energy into the Democratic Party, prognosticators still say the prizewinner of the House is anybody’s guess.

“The House is highly close and competitive, and really could go either way.  And I say the same thing about the presidential race,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told States Newsroom on Thursday.

A ‘district-by-district slug fest’ 

Control of the 435-seat House remains a toss-up, with competitive races in both the seven swing states and in states that will almost certainly have no bearing on who wins the top of the ticket.

Sabato’s, an election prognosticator, currently ranks nine Republican seats of the roughly 30 competitive races as “toss-up” seats for the party — meaning the GOP incumbents are locked in competitive races.

The GOP has held a slim majority this Congress, and Democrats only need to net four seats to gain control.

“It really is right on the razor’s edge,” Kondik said. “It’s pretty crazy that, you know, we’ve had two straight elections with just 222-seat majorities. And it’s pretty rare historically for there to be, you know, majorities that small twice in a row — unprecedented.

“Usually you’d have one side or the other breaking out to a bigger advantage, and I think both sides are viewing this, really, as a district-by-district slug fest.”

Sabato’s adjusted its ratings on five races Thursday, including moving Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska to the “toss-up” category from a safer “leans Democratic.” Kondik also nudged the race for Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York to “leans Republican” from “toss up.”

“The big ones are probably Peltola, and then Mike Lawler, who holds one of the bluest seats held by a Republican, but I moved him to ‘leans R.’ It seems pretty clear to me that he’s in a decent position,” Kondik said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s fundraising arm for House races, announced in June nearly $1.2 million in ad buys in Alaska. The organization launched a new ad in the state this month that accuses Peltola of not supporting veterans.

It’s always about Pennsylvania

In addition to Peltola, Kondik ranks nine other Democratic incumbents — of the nearly 40 competitive races — as toss-ups.

Among the toss-ups is the seat currently held by Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, a key swing state in the presidential race. Cartwright’s Republican challenger, Rob Bresnahan, runs an electrical contracting company in the northeastern Pennsylvania district that he took over from his grandfather.

Democrats are investing in the seat: Cartwright is running a new ad featuring union workers praising him, and just last week Harris hosted a rally in the district, which includes Scranton.

But the NRCC thinks they have a pretty good chance of flipping his seat.

Breshnahan’s company is “a union shop,” said NRCC head Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina. “So he can talk union talk. He’s a great candidate for us.”

“Matt Cartwright is in trouble,” Hudson said on the conservative “Ruthless Podcast” on Sept. 12.

“I think the way we’ve structured it, the type of candidates we recruited across the country, from Maine to Alaska, from Minnesota to Texas, regardless of top of the ticket, we’re going to pick up seats,” Hudson said.

Van Orden targeted in Wisconsin

But Sabato’s also nudged three seats toward the Democrats’ favor on Thursday.

Kondik moved Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin from the safety of “likely Republican” to the weaker “leans Republican” category.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sees an “important opportunity” in Van Orden’s district. The GOP congressman, who represents central and western Wisconsin, became known for his profanity-laced outburst at young Senate pages for taking photos of the Capitol rotunda.

The Democrats are running challenger Rebecca Cooke, a small business owner, in the hopes of unseating him.

“We have an incredible candidate in Rebecca Cooke (against) one of the most extreme, which is saying a lot, Republicans in the House,” DelBene told reporters on a call Monday.

“We have put Rebecca Cooke on our Red-to-Blue list and are strongly supporting her campaign. She’s doing a great job, and this absolutely is a priority for us,” DelBene said, referring to the DCCC’s list of 30 candidates that receive extra fundraising support.

DelBene said she’s confident in the Democrats’ chances to flip the House, citing healthy coffers and revived interest.

“We have seen huge enthusiasm all across the country. We have seen people, more and more people turning out to volunteer, to knock on doors, to make phone calls,” she said.

Democrats’ cash ‘flooding,’ NRCC chief says

Erin Covey, a House analyst with The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, wrote on Sept. 5 that Democrats have a brighter outlook after Harris assumed the top of the ticket, though November remains a close call.

“Now, polling conducted by both parties largely shows Harris matching, or coming a few points short of, Biden’s 2020 margins across competitive House districts,” Covey wrote.

The NRCC has taken note. During his interview on the “Ruthless Podcast,” Hudson compared Harris becoming the Democrats’ new choice for president as a “bloodless coup,” and said the enthusiasm she’s sparked is a cause for concern for Republicans. Democratic delegates nominated Harris, in accordance with party rules, to run for the Oval Office after Biden dropped out in late July.

“A lot of people, even Democrats, you know, just weren’t comfortable voting for Joe Biden. With Kamala on the ticket, we saw a surge in Democrats coming home and having the enthusiasm,” Hudson said.

Hudson said he also worries about Democrats’ fundraising numbers.

“The one thing that keeps you awake at night is the Democrat money. It’s flooding,” Hudson said. “The second quarter this year I was able to raise the most money we’ve ever raised as a committee, and the Democrats raised $7 million more. I mean, it’s just, they just keep coming. It’s like the Terminator.”

“But we don’t have to match them dollar for dollar,” Hudson said. “We’ve just got to make sure we’ve got the resources we need. And so we’ve just got to keep our pace.”

The DCCC announced Friday it raised $22.3 million in August, bringing its total for this election cycle to $250.6 million.

Senate map tilts toward GOP

Republicans are inching closer and closer to flipping the Senate red during this year’s elections, thanks to a map that favors GOP incumbents and puts Democrats on the defensive in several states.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice is widely expected to win his bid for the upper chamber, bringing Republicans up to 50 seats, as long as they hang on in Florida, Nebraska and Texas.

But Democrats will need to secure wins in several challenging states, including Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and break the 50-50 tie through a Democratic presidency — if they want to remain the majority party.

That many Democratic wins seems increasingly unlikely, though not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester is looking to secure reelection against GOP challenger Tim Sheehy, has been moved from a “toss-up” state to leaning toward Republicans by three respected analysis organizations in the last few weeks.

The Cook Political Report wrote in its ratings change earlier this month that several “public polls have shown Sheehy opening up a small, but consistent lead.”

“Democrats push back that their polling still shows Tester within the margin of error of the race, and that those are exactly the type of close races he’s won before,” their assessment said. “Tester, however, has never run on a presidential ballot in a polarized environment of this kind before — and even with his stumbles, Sheehy is still the strongest, best financed candidate he’s ever faced.”

Republicans winning Montana’s Senate seat could give them a firm, though narrow, 51-seat Senate majority.

Florida, Texas, Nebraska

That, however, would require the Republican incumbents in states like Florida and Texas — where it’s not clear if evolving trends against Republicans will continue — to secure their reelection wins.

And it would mean holding off a wild card independent candidate in the Cornhusker state.

The Cook Political Report says it’s “worth keeping an eye on a unique situation developing in Nebraska, where independent candidate Dan Osborn is challenging Republican Sen. Deb Fischer.”

CPR also noted in its analysis that Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities, which could rebalance the scales a bit, are Florida and Texas.

“Today, the Lone Star State looks like the better option because of the strengths and fundraising of Democrats’ challenger there, Rep. Colin Allred,” CPR wrote.

If Democrats do hold onto 50 seats, through whatever combination of wins and losses shakes out on election night, majority control would depend on whichever candidate wins the presidential contest.

Given the close nature of several Senate races, it is entirely possible control of that chamber isn’t known until after recounts take place in the swing states.

Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Gary Peters, D-Mich., said during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that he’s known all along Democratic candidates will be in “very right races.”

“In a nutshell, I’m optimistic,” Peters said. “I believe we’re going to hold the majority. I feel good about where we are. We’re basically where I thought we would be after Labor Day in really tight races. None of this is a surprise to us. Now we just have to run our playbook, be focused, be disciplined.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, led this cycle by Montana Sen. Steve Daines, is confident the GOP will pick up the Senate majority following November’s elections.

The group highlighted a Washington Post poll this week showing a tie between Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and GOP candidate Dave McCormick in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

NRSC Spokesman Philip Letsou sent out a written statement after the poll’s release that Casey is in the “race for his life…because Pennsylvania voters know Casey’s lockstep support for Kamala Harris and her inflationary, anti-fracking agenda will devastate their economy. Pennsylvanians have had enough of liberal, career politicians like Casey and Harris.”

No change in filibuster in sight

The GOP acquisition of a handful of seats would still require the next Republican leader to constantly broker deals with Democrats, since the chamber is widely expected to retain the legislative filibuster.

That rule requires at least 60 senators vote to advance legislation toward final passage and is the main reason the chamber rarely takes up partisan bills.

A Republican sweep of the House, Senate and White House for unified government would give them the chance to pass certain types of legislation through the fast-track budget reconciliation process they used to approve the 2017 tax law.

How wide their majorities are in each chamber will determine how much they can do within such a bill, given Republicans will still have centrist members, like Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins, balancing the party against more far-right policy goals.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/20/racing-toward-election-day-control-of-u-s-senate-and-house-up-for-grabs/feed/ 0
On the 23rd anniversary of Sept. 11 attacks, victims and first responders honored https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/11/on-the-23rd-anniversary-of-sept-11-attacks-victims-and-first-responders-honored/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/11/on-the-23rd-anniversary-of-sept-11-attacks-victims-and-first-responders-honored/#respond Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:22:10 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21827

The Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former President Donald Trump and the Republican vice presidential nominee, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum on Wednesday in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris honored victims on the 23rd anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when four hijacked commercial airliners crashed into New York City’s Twin Towers, a Pennsylvania field and the Pentagon, shocking the world and precipitating years of U.S. war targeting extremists.

Biden and Harris honored the nearly 2,977 lives lost that day visiting all three sites Wednesday. In New York City they sat among leaders past and present, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, during the annual reading of the names of those who died when the Twin Towers collapsed.

Harris and Trump shook hands at the ceremony just hours after their contentious presidential debate Tuesday night, during which they blamed each other for the deadly 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan two decades after the United States invaded in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

Biden and Harris then traveled to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to lay a wreath at a memorial near the field where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed.

They also brought pizza and beer to local volunteer firefighters.

Both walked to a sandstone boulder in the field that marks the point of impact, according to reporters traveling with the president and vice president.

Trump also visited the memorial and crash site in Shanksville on Wednesday, according to press who were present.

Biden and Harris closed the day by laying a wreath at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, where 184 people were killed when a hijacked jet targeted the hub of U.S. defense operations.

“On this day 23 years ago, terrorists believed they could break our will and bring us to our knees. They were wrong. They will always be wrong,” Biden said in a statement. “In the darkest of hours, we found light. And in the face of fear, we came together — to defend our country, and to help one another. That is why terrorists targeted us in the first place: our freedom, our democracy, our unity.”

“They failed. But we must remain vigilant. Today, our longest war is finally over. But our commitment to preventing another attack on our people never will be,” he continued.

Both the president and Harris hailed the Obama administration’s 2011 U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden, a known terrorist who antagonized the U.S. for years before directing his al-Qaida network to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

“(A)nd two years ago, President Biden ordered an operation that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy,” Harris said in a statement. “We remain vigilant against any terrorist threat directed at the United States or the American people and we continue to disrupt terrorist networks wherever we find them.”

Tributes from Congress

Congressional leaders paid tribute to the victims as well Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York attended the morning ceremony at Ground Zero in Manhattan.

“Today and every day, we remember and honor the sacrifice, resiliency, and the bravery of New Yorkers, our first responders, the families of those who were taken from us, and Americans across the country,” Schumer posted on X Wednesday. “We will #NeverForget the souls we lost on 9/11 and in the years since.”

In remarks on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell honored the 9/11 victims and also criticized the Biden administration for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He also attacked Harris for comments she made on the debate stage Tuesday.

“The Biden-Harris Administration pretends the war on terrorism is over,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The vice president, herself, claimed last night that ‘there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone (for) the first time this century.’”

“This, of course, would be news to the U.S. service members who conducted operations against ISIS in Iraq last week, and to the sailors intercepting Houthi rockets in the Red Sea, and to the families of service members killed and injured in the attack on Tower 22 near Jordan’s border with Syria earlier this year,” McConnell said, referencing Iran-backed militant attacks on shipping vessels and a U.S. Air Force and Army base in the northernmost tip of Jordan.

Both U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries marked the anniversary by laying a wreath at the 9/11 memorial in the U.S. Capitol that honors the passengers and crew of Flight 93.

“The 9/11 terrorists sought to destroy America, but they were no match for the indomitable American spirit. On this solemn day, we honor the lives of those lost and remember the strength and courage of our first responders who ran towards danger, not from it. We will never forget their extraordinary sacrifice,” Johnson of Louisiana said in a statement.

Jeffries, a New York Democrat, called attention to emergency workers who developed chronic health issues following their duties at the Manhattan crash site.

“Hundreds of first responders selflessly and bravely answered the call and ran towards danger. They risked their own safety to rescue whoever they could find. Due to the toxic exposures they endured at Ground Zero, many went on to contract severe or terminal long-term illnesses,” Jeffries said in a statement, spotlighting the more than two dozen New York firefighters who died this year from their 9/11-related diseases.

“Our commitment to our courageous first responders is ironclad and must endure. House Democrats will always stand up for the heroes who gave everything on that tragic day,” Jeffries said, blasting Republicans who in 2019 stalled, and some who voted against, a government medical fund for the responders. “We will never forget their sacrifice.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/11/on-the-23rd-anniversary-of-sept-11-attacks-victims-and-first-responders-honored/feed/ 0
Trump sentencing in New York hush money case postponed until after presidential election https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/trump-sentencing-in-new-york-hush-money-case-postponed-until-after-presidential-election/ Fri, 06 Sep 2024 18:53:23 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=21746

CAPTION: Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he arrives to court for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30 in New York City (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump will not face criminal sentencing in New York for his state felony convictions ahead of the November election, according to a decision released Friday by New York Judge Juan Merchan.

The New York judge said Friday the new sentencing date will be Nov. 26,  according to a letter he issued Friday.

Merchan wrote that the court is “now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities,” referring to the fast-approaching presidential election and the consequential U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity that Trump’s legal team has now brought to the center of the New York case.

“Adjourning decision on the motion and sentencing, if such is required, should dispel any suggestion that the Court will have issued any decision or imposed sentence either to give an advantage to, or to create a disadvantage for, any political party and/or any candidate for any office,” Merchan wrote.

“This is not a decision the court makes lightly but it is the decision which in this court’s view best advances the interests of justice,” Merchan later concluded.

Trump, vying again for the Oval Office as the Republican nominee, is the first-ever former president to become a felon.

He was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May after a weeks-long Manhattan trial that centered on hush money payments to a porn star ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump asked the New York court to delay the sentencing until after the 2024 election, arguing that the question of presidential immunity as it related to the New York conviction remains unresolved.

Friday’s decision marks the second time Merchan has delayed Trump’s sentencing.

Merchan delayed Trump’s initial July sentencing date, just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for official “core constitutional” acts and at least presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” activities, but not for personal ones.

Trump’s lawyers argued the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision nullified his New York state convictions, particularly because the evidence presented at trial could now be considered subject to immunity.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed to a delay while the parties filed legal arguments on the issue of immunity, which Bragg ultimately argued had “no bearing” on Trump’s convictions and evidence examined by the jury.

Trump, who has been entangled on several legal fronts, escalated his separate federal criminal case alleging 2020 election interference all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing presidential immunity for any criminal charges stemming from his time in office.

The case alleging Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results was returned to federal trial court. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday released a pre-trial calendar that extends beyond this November’s election.

]]>
Trump’s Jan. 6 case to extend beyond Election Day under timeline laid out by judge https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/05/judge-in-trumps-jan-6-case-says-it-wont-be-delayed-by-upcoming-presidential-election/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/05/judge-in-trumps-jan-6-case-says-it-wont-be-delayed-by-upcoming-presidential-election/#respond Thu, 05 Sep 2024 18:13:59 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21727

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Exactly two months out from the presidential election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan plans to move ahead with the case accusing former President Donald Trump of subverting the 2020 presidential election results, telling Trump’s attorneys that she is “not concerned with the electoral schedule.”

Chutkan released a timeline for the case late Thursday afternoon setting several deadlines for evidence, briefs and replies for the weeks prior to November’s election, and ultimately stretching beyond Election Day.

While it had been evident for some time that the Republican presidential nominee likely would not face a trial before Nov. 5 on election interference charges, Chutkan’s calendar made it certain.

Trump did not appear in federal court for Thursday morning’s hearing in Washington, D.C., but his lawyers pleaded not guilty on his behalf to the four charges that remained unchanged in U.S. special counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment, filed last week.

The case had been in a holding pattern for eight months as Trump appealed his claim of presidential immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. prosecutors say they are ready to restart the case in the coming weeks, while Trump’s team has argued for more time to review evidence and dismiss the superseding indictment.

The Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to the trial court after ruling that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for official “core constitutional” acts while in office and hold at least presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” activities, but not for personal actions.

This gave Chutkan, an Obama administration appointee, the major task of parsing Smith’s indictment, deciding which allegations against Trump fall under the umbrella of official acts and which relate to actions taken in a personal capacity.

Chutkan set the following deadlines on the pre-trial calendar:

  • The government must complete all mandatory evidentiary disclosures by Sept. 10, with other disclosures ongoing afterward.
  • Trump’s reply briefs to certain evidence matters are due Sept. 19.
  • The government’s opening brief on presidential immunity is due Sept. 26, and the Trump legal team’s reply is due on Oct. 17. The government’s opposition is thereafter due on Oct. 29.
  • Trump is also scheduled to provide a supplement to his original motion to dismiss based on statutory grounds by Oct. 3, and the government must reply by Oct. 17.
  • Trump’s request to file a motion based on his argument that Smith was illegally appointed to his special prosecutor position is due on Oct. 24, with the government’s reply due on Oct. 31. The due date for Trump’s opposition to the government’s reply is Nov. 7, stretching the pre-trial calendar beyond the presidential election.

Chutkan skeptical 

Chutkan did not issue any decisions on immunity at the Thursday hearing but rather spent significant time grilling Trump’s attorney John Lauro on why he believes it is “unseemly” for Smith’s office to lay out its case this month in an opening brief. Thomas Windom, a federal prosecutor in Smith’s office, said the government would be ready to file the brief by the end of September.

Lauro argued that Smith wanting to file “at breakneck speed” is “incredibly unfair that they are able to put in the public record (evidence) at this sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

“I understand there’s an election impending,” Chutkan snapped back, reminding him that it “is not relevant here.”

“Three weeks is not exactly breakneck speed,” Chutkan added.

Lauro argues that Chutkan should examine parts of the indictment that accuse Trump of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to accept false slates of electors leading up to Pence’s ceremonial role in certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The problem with that issue is if in fact the communications are immune, then the entire indictment fails,” Lauro argued.

“I’m not sure that’s my reading of the case,” Chutkan replied.

The government maintains that all actions and communications by Trump described in the new indictment were “private in nature,” Windom argued.

Chutkan also spent time during the roughly 75-minute hearing questioning Lauro on the Trump legal team’s numerous plans to request the case’s dismissal. One anticipated plan is to try its successful play in Florida, where a Trump-appointed federal judge tossed his classified documents case after Trump argued Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel.

Chutkan said she will allow the defense to file that motion but warned that attorneys must provide convincing arguments on why “binding precedent doesn’t hold” for the time-tested position of special prosecutor.

New indictment, same charges

Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights for his alleged role in conspiring to create false electors from seven states and spreading knowingly false information that whipped his supporters into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A federal grand jury handed up a revised indictment Aug. 27 in an effort to tailor the charges to the Supreme Court’s July 1 immunity ruling. The fresh indictment omitted any references to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Justice Department officials to meddle in state election results.

But the document added emphasis on Trump’s personal use of social media outside of his actions as president, and said he and several co-conspirators schemed outside of his official duties. The new indictment also stressed Trump’s pressure on Pence to accept the fake electors in his role outside of the executive branch as president of the Senate.

If Trump wins the Oval Office in November, he would have the power to hinder or altogether shut down the Department of Justice’s election interference case against him.

If he loses to Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, the case is sure to be set back by further delays, as the Trump team plans numerous challenges and will almost certainly appeal — likely to the Supreme Court again — Chutkan’s decisions on which allegations against Trump are or are not subject to immunity.

According to Friday’s joint filing in which each side laid out plans for the case going forward, Trump’s team also warned they will challenge that Trump’s tweets and communication about the 2020 presidential results should be considered all official acts.

Additionally, Trump plans to file a motion to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court’s June ruling that a Jan. 6 rioter could not be charged with obstructing an official proceeding — a charge that Trump also faces.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/05/judge-in-trumps-jan-6-case-says-it-wont-be-delayed-by-upcoming-presidential-election/feed/ 0
Harris, Walz defend past statements, promise ‘opportunity economy’ in CNN interview https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/harris-walz-defend-past-statements-promise-opportunity-economy-in-cnn-interview/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/harris-walz-defend-past-statements-promise-opportunity-economy-in-cnn-interview/#respond Fri, 30 Aug 2024 12:03:37 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21675

Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally at the Enmarket Arena on Aug. 29, 2024 in Savannah, Georgia. Harris has campaigned in southeast Georgia for the past two days and on Thursday, she and running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, sat for an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday defended her values and vowed, if elected, to appoint a Republican to her cabinet in her first major sit-down interview since her presidential campaign began just over a month ago.

Harris, who rose to the top of the Democratic ticket after President Joe Biden dropped his bid in July, spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash in Savannah, Georgia, for roughly 30 minutes with her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz by her side.

The interview came a week after Harris formally accepted the party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Harris had recently become the target of criticism for not yet participating in an unscripted interview with a major news outlet.

Harris and Walz sat down with the network anchor Thursday afternoon in Georgia during a pause in the pair’s two-day bus tour through the southeastern region of the battleground state.

Harris told Bash that she envisions building an “opportunity economy” for the middle class, including expanding the child tax credit to up to $6,000, providing a $25,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, and combating “price gouging,” to which Harris attributed high grocery prices.

The vice president ticked off Democratic accomplishments under Biden, including capping the price of insulin and reducing child poverty under a pandemic-era temporary expansion of the child tax credit that eliminated the work requirement and paid families in monthly installments.

“I’ll say that that’s good work, there’s more to do, but that’s good work,” Harris said.

The CNN anchor pressed Harris on her changes in policy positions, including immigration and fracking.

Republicans have pounced on Harris’ past statements and accuse her of changing her tune to appeal to more centrist voters. Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday dubbed her “FLIP-FLOPPING KAMALA” on his Truth Social platform, where the current GOP presidential nominee posts numerous times a day.

“​​Let’s be clear, in this race I’m the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations who traffic in guns, drugs and human beings,” Harris said when asked about her past position on decriminalizing the border. “I’m the only person in this race who actually served a border state as attorney general to enforce our laws, and I would enforce our laws as president going forward, I recognize the problem.”

Harris also defended her switch from opposing fracking to supporting it.

“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. I have always believed, and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real,” Harris said.

Despite attacks from Republicans, Bash noted that the Democratic National Convention featured quite a few speakers from the GOP side of the aisle.

Prompted to the idea by Bash, Harris said “it would be a benefit to the American public” to appoint a Republican to her administration cabinet, if elected — though she didn’t name names.

“I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it’s important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences,” she said.

Harris brushes off Trump’s insults

The interview revealed for many that Harris and Trump have never met face-to-face.They will do so for the first time on the debate stage on Sept. 10, an event that will air on ABC News.

As for her thoughts on Trump, Harris told Bash that the former president is “diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans.”

When Bash asked Harris to respond to Trump’s attacks, including questioning her race, the vice president only briefly addressed them.

“Same old tired playbook, next question please,” she said.

Bash then moved to the topic of the Israel-Hamas war to which Harris responded that she is “unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself,” adding that “how it does so matters.”

She reiterated her plea for a peace deal that includes rescuing hostages who remain in Hamas captivity.

“​​A deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war, but will unlock so much of what must happen next. I remain committed, since I’ve been on October 8, to what we must do to work toward a two-state solution where Israel is secure, and in equal measure, the Palestinians have security and self-determination and dignity.”

Walz defense

Bash asked Walz to respond to controversy around how he described his military service that spanned more than two decades in the Army National Guard, but never included combat deployment. Questions arose when Walz said he carried weapons “in war” in a 2018 video where he was speaking about gun violence, according to The Associated Press.

Walz, who also worked as a public school teacher and high school football coach, said he misspoke and that his “grammar is not always correct.”

“I wear my emotions on my sleeve, I speak especially passionately about our children being shot in schools and around guns. So I think people know me. They know who I am. They know where my heart is, and again, my record has been out there for over 40 years to speak for itself,” Walz said.

Bash also asked Walz about his mix-up when describing he and wife’s fertility method; he said it was in vitro fertilization — a topic that has fractured anti-abortion voters — while in reality the couple used artificial insemination.

Walz told Bash, “I certainly own my mistakes when I make them.”

“I spoke about our infertility issues because it’s hell, and families know this. And I spoke about the treatments that were available to us, that had those beautiful children. That’s quite a contrast in folks that are trying to take those rights away from us,” he said.

Just as the interview ended, Trump posted to his Truth Social platform the word “BORING!!!”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/harris-walz-defend-past-statements-promise-opportunity-economy-in-cnn-interview/feed/ 0
DOJ looks to revive classified documents case against Trump, argues judge’s dismissal was ‘flawed’ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/27/doj-looks-to-revive-classified-documents-case-against-trump-argues-judges-dismissal-was-flawed/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/27/doj-looks-to-revive-classified-documents-case-against-trump-argues-judges-dismissal-was-flawed/#respond Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:38:11 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21635

Special Counsel Jack Smith is looking to reopen a case against former President Donald Trump, filing arguments on Monday, Aug. 26, with a federal appeals court of Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss it. Cannon, a Trump appointee, was nominated in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked a federal appeals court to reverse the dismissal of a case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents at his Florida home after he left the Oval Office.

The appeals process could take months, likely closing the door on any movement in the classified documents case against Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, before November’s election.

Smith argued late Monday that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to toss the case was based on a “flawed” argument that Smith was illegally appointed to the office of special counsel.

Over an 81-page brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Smith cited statutes and a Watergate-era Supreme Court decision to argue the time-tested legality of U.S. attorneys general to appoint and fund independent, or special, counsels.

“In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels,” Smith wrote.

Further, he warned, “[t]he district court’s rationale could jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch.”

Cannon, a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida, dismissed the classified documents case against Trump on July 15 — two days after Trump was injured in an attempted assassination in Pennsylvania and just as the Republican National Convention kicked off in Wisconsin.

Cannon is a Trump appointee who was nominated in 2020 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate later that year.

Trump had argued for the case’s dismissal in February.

Days before he was set to officially accept the party’s nomination for president, Trump hailed Cannon’s dismissal as a way to unite the nation following the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Cannon argued Smith’s appointment violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution that govern how presidential administrations and Congress appoint and approve “Officers of the United States,” and how taxpayer money can be used to pay their salaries and other expenses.

Smith appealed her decision just days later.

Historic classified documents case

Smith’s historic case against Trump marked the first time a former U.S. president faced federal criminal charges.

A grand jury handed up a 37-count indictment in June 2023 charging the former president, along with his aide Walt Nauta, with felonies related to mishandling classified documents after Trump’s term in office, including storing them at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate. A superseding indictment that added charges and another co-defendant was handed up a little over a month later.

The classified documents case is just one of several legal entanglements for Trump, who became a convicted felon in New York state court in May.

The former president also continues to face federal criminal charges for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. That case has also been in a holding pattern for several months as Trump appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the charges should be dropped based on presidential criminal immunity.

The Supreme Court ruled in early July that the former presidents enjoy immunity for official “core Constitutional” acts and returned the case to the federal trial court in Washington, D.C.

Smith has until the end of August to assess how the immunity decision affects the election subversion case against Trump. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for Sept. 5.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/27/doj-looks-to-revive-classified-documents-case-against-trump-argues-judges-dismissal-was-flawed/feed/ 0
Struggle for control of Congress intensifies as presidential contest shifts https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/15/struggle-for-control-of-congress-intensifies-as-presidential-contest-shifts/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/15/struggle-for-control-of-congress-intensifies-as-presidential-contest-shifts/#respond Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:55:10 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21491

In this year’s battle for control of Congress, Republicans aim to increase their slim majority in the House of Representatives and flip the Senate, while Democrats are hoping to hang onto their majority in the upper chamber and regain control of the House (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The 2024 battle for control of Congress centers on just a handful of Senate races and about two dozen House seats, putting considerable pressure on those candidates to win over voters as party leaders and super PACs funnel millions of dollars into their campaigns.

The incumbents representing those states and congressional districts will spend nearly all of their time campaigning between now and Election Day, with Congress in session just three weeks ahead of Nov. 5. They’ll be fighting off challengers who will be on the home front the entire time.

Republicans aim to increase their slim majority in the House of Representatives and flip the Senate, while Democrats are hoping to hang onto their majority in the upper chamber and regain control of the House.

Experts interviewed by States Newsroom said the outcome will be determined by multiple factors, including turnout, ticket splitting and the trajectory of the presidential campaign, which underwent an abrupt change with the exit of President Joe Biden and the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate.

At stake is whether Harris or Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, faces a Congress friendly to their ambitions or another two years of a deeply divided government in the nation’s capital. Biden has struggled with a GOP House and a Senate narrowly controlled by Democrats during the past two years.

“There’s a lot of energy on both sides for these congressional races, because of just how close the margins are going to be in the House and Senate,” said Casey Burgat, assistant professor and legislative affairs program director at George Washington University.

Senate GOP control?

The Senate is trending toward a Republican majority, though that will be determined by voters in Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, all of which are considered toss-ups by the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, a respected non-partisan publication.

If the GOP picks up any one of those four seats, that would give Republicans at least a 51-seat majority in the chamber after winning the West Virginia seat that’s currently held by Joe Manchin III, thought to be nearly certain in the GOP-dominated state.

Democrats maintaining those four seats as well as three others classified as “lean Democrat” by the Cook Political Report would leave control of a 50-50 Senate to the results of the presidential election, since the vice president casts tie-breaking votes in that chamber.

The Senate map is highly favorable to Republicans, who are defending 11 seats in safely red states, while Democrats are trying to hold on to 23 seats, with seven of those in purple states.

While the entire 435-member House of Representatives is up for reelection every two years, senators are elected to six-year terms, leaving about one-third of the chamber up for reelection in evenly numbered years.

Eyes on Montana

Robert Saldin, professor of political science at the University of Montana, said during an interview that Democratic Sen. Jon Tester will need to get voters in the state who support Trump to split their tickets if Tester is going to secure reelection.

“One of the secrets to Tester’s success over the years is that he has been able to distinguish himself from stereotypes of the national Democratic Party,” Saldin said. “And that’s going to be really important again, obviously, because Trump is on the ticket, and is certainly going to carry the state by a very wide margin.”

Republican challenger Tim Sheehy could potentially have a bit of an easier time getting elected this November in the deeply Republican state, he said.

“All he has to do is get people who are voting for Trump to also vote for him. And in fact, he can probably lose some tens of thousands of voters and still be okay,” Saldin said.

Sheehy, however, is somewhat disadvantaged by not having run in a competitive GOP primary, leaving him to move directly into a high-stakes general election.

“He is a political novice,” Saldin said. “He didn’t have a practice run in the primary. And here he is fresh out of the gate in one of the most expensive, most watched, most hyped Senate elections in the country. And so he’s having to learn as he goes.”

One factor that could benefit Tester over Sheehy is a ballot question addressing abortion access in the state that is likely to go before voters in November, Saldin said.

“That should give at least a little nudge in the direction of the Democrats,” Saldin said.

A dozen other states have approved or could approve abortion ballot questions, including Arizona, Florida, Maryland and Nevada.

In Ohio, edging away from national politics

Paul A. Beck, academy professor of political science at The Ohio State University, said Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has sought to separate himself from national political figures throughout this reelection bid.

“I think he really wants to make this a local contest, a statewide contest, not a national contest,” Beck said. “And so he’s going to do everything he can to not appear on the stage with the Democratic nominees for president, and everything he can to try to define himself as somebody who is above partisan politics.”

Brown was elected to the House in 1992 before winning election to the Senate in 2006. He secured reelection in 2012 and 2018, though Republican candidate Bernie Moreno is looking to end that streak this year.

Beck said a ballot question about redistricting could help boost turnout, potentially increasing Brown’s chances.

“It’s going to energize voters and is going to produce higher turnout on the left than it will on the right, and that could be a factor in 2024,” Beck said.

Incumbent clout

Sitting members of Congress have historically held an advantage that may help the party that holds more members seeking to return to Capitol Hill for the 119th Congress.

“Reelection rates in the House have never dropped below 85%, and have recently stretched to highs of 98% in 2004 and 97% in 2016,” according to analysis from Miro Hall-Jones at OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that reports on the role of money in U.S. politics. “While the Senate is more susceptible to shifts in public opinion — reelection rates dropped as low as 50% in 1980 at the dawn of the Reagan Revolution — incumbent senators have retained their seats in 88% of races since 1990.”

Every single one of the 28 senators seeking reelection two years ago was able to convince voters in their home states to give them another term, marking the first time that happened in American history, according to the analysis.

Michigan and Arizona Senate races could then present a bigger challenge for Democrats, since both those seats are open due to the upcoming retirements of Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

Michigan is currently rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report while Arizona is rated as “lean Democrat.”

In the House, the 11 seats held by Republicans and considered by the Cook Political Report to be toss-ups all are held by an incumbent seeking reelection, while two of the Democrats’ 11 toss-up seats are open.

House majority

The contest for who controls the House after November is “razor thin,” said Burgat from George Washington University. With Republicans holding on by a slim margin, Democrats only need a net gain of four seats to capture the majority.

“Whether it goes Democratic or Republican, it’s not going to be by much,” Burgat said.

While Democrats and Republicans will focus much of their attention on the 22 toss-up races, they’ll also be funneling resources toward the campaigns that are rated as only leaning in their direction, as opposed to being likely or solid seats.

The Cook Political Report has eight seats held by GOP lawmakers as leaning in Republicans’ favor while 14 races, all Democratic-held seats except one, are in districts that “lean Democrat.”

That makes a total of about 44 competitive House races, according to the Cook Political Report’s analysis.

Among the closely watched congressional districts:

  • Both parties are eyeing open seats in California, Colorado, Michigan and Virginia.
  • Michigan’s 7th and 8th districts, respectively opened by Democrats Elissa Slotkin, who is seeking the state’s open Senate seat, and the retiring Dan Kildee, are rated by the Cook Political Report as toss-ups.
  • Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, being vacated by Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who will focus on a run for governor, is expected to lean blue.
  • California Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s district also leans towards Democrats. Porter decided to leave the seat for an unsuccessful Senate run.
  • Colorado’s 3rd, abandoned by Republican Lauren Boebert, who shifted to a friendlier district, leans Republican, according to the Cook Political Report.
  • One open seat each in Maryland and New Hampshire is rated as likely Democrat by the prognosticator.

DCCC ads

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is throwing big money where races are competitive, zeroing in on 15 media markets including those in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The official campaign arm of House Democrats announced a $28 million initial ad buy in June, spending double on digital ads compared to 2022, according to the organization.

The DCCC maintains that House Democrats “have always had multiple paths to reclaim the majority in November — including our 27 Red to Blue candidates in districts across the country working to defeat extreme Republicans who are out-of-touch with their communities,” spokesperson Viet Shelton told States Newsroom in a written statement.

Shelton said voters are “fed up with these politicians who are more interested in obeying Trump, voting for abortion bans, and giving tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations, while ignoring the needs of the middle class.”

The DCCC sees pickup opportunities in the 16 districts Biden won in 2020 that are currently held by Republicans.

Among them are five seats in California, four in New York, two in Arizona, and one respectively in New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nebraska also saw incumbent GOP Rep. Don Bacon’s district go to Biden.

The switch to Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket could boost challengers in heavily college-educated districts, according to the Cook Political Report’s latest analysis of the field.

Those include Arizona’s 1st Congressional District held by GOP Rep. David Schweikert, New Jersey’s 7th occupied by freshman Thomas Kean Jr., and New York’s 17th held by Mike Lawler, also in his first term. All are rated as Republican toss-ups by the Cook Political Report.

Frontline candidates

But the DCCC campaign has vulnerable Democratic incumbents to worry about as well. The organization has identified 31 as “frontline” members, meaning their purple districts are what campaigners describe as “in play.”

Among them is 40-year Democrat Marcy Kaptur, who has held Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, in the state’s northwest region, since 1983.

Other vulnerable Democrats include Reps. Yadira Caraveo in Colorado’s 8th, Jared Golden in Maine’s 2nd, Don Davis in North Carolina’s 1st, Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico’s 2nd, Emilia Sykes in Ohio’s 13th, Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania’s 7th and 8th districts, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in Washington’s 3rd.

The National Republican Congressional Committee did not respond to requests for comment, but the House GOP campaign arm announced in late June a $45.7 million initial ad buy across 29 media markets, with large chunks going to metro areas in Los Angeles; New York City; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Portland, Oregon; and Omaha, Nebraska.

The ad buy — an offensive to “to grow our majority,” NRCC Chair Richard Hudson said in a press release — will specifically target 13 districts currently held by Democrats.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/15/struggle-for-control-of-congress-intensifies-as-presidential-contest-shifts/feed/ 0
In rare bipartisan vote, U.S. Senate passes package aimed at protecting kids online https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/30/in-rare-bipartisan-vote-u-s-senate-passes-package-aimed-at-protecting-kids-online/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/30/in-rare-bipartisan-vote-u-s-senate-passes-package-aimed-at-protecting-kids-online/#respond Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:17:04 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21280

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., speaks during a news conference on the Kids Online Safety Act at the U.S. Capitol on July 25, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Legislation aimed at protecting children online sailed through the U.S. Senate Tuesday, marking what could be the first update since the late 1990s for companies who interact with minors on the internet.

Senators approved the package of two bills in a 91-3 vote, a rare bipartisan landslide in the tightly divided body, despite loud and fervent opposition from civil liberties and LGBTQ organizations that say the measures would hand the government power to subjectively censor content.

The three no votes were cast by Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

If you or a loved one are experiencing a mental health crisis or thoughts of suicide, please dial 988 or chat with a live counselor at 988lifeline.org.

If passed by the House, the legislative package would require producers of platforms popular among children and teens to follow new rules governing advertising, algorithms and collection of personal data.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has expressed interest in “working to find consensus in the House.”

President Joe Biden released a statement Tuesday calling the Senate vote a “crucial bipartisan step forward” and said the bill dovetails with measures he advocated for in his first State of the Union Address.

“There is undeniable evidence that social media and other online platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis. Today our children are subjected to a wild west online and our current laws and regulations are insufficient to prevent this. It is past time to act,” Biden said, adding that tech companies need to be “accountable for the national experiment they are running on our children for profit.”

Families asked for federal help

The package contains two bills moving together: the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act, which is mainly targeted at regulating the collection of personal data, and the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill that has been a lightning rod of criticism from outside groups.

A bipartisan group of senators points to years of hearings and meetings with tragedy-struck families — including those whose children struggled with eating disorders and died by suicide — as the motivation behind the proposals.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee, one of the Kids Online Safety Act’s original sponsors, said the legislation is a “safety by design bill, a duty of care bill that gives kids and parents a toolbox so that they can protect themselves.”

“A message that we’re sending to big tech: kids are not your product, kids are not your profit source, and we are going to protect them in the virtual space,” Blackburn, a Republican, said at a press conference following the vote.

Blackburn co-led the bill dubbed the Kids Online Safety Act with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Sen. Ed Markey, who championed the last protections passed by Congress in late 1990s, said “back in 1998 only birds tweeted, a gram was a measurement of weight, and so we need to update the law.”

The Massachusetts Democrat joined Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana in co-sponsoring the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act.

Markey likened addictive social media products to those of the tobacco industry in previous decades, and cited public health warnings attributing increasing childhood mental health issues to the platforms.

“So we have to give the tools to parents and to teenagers and children to be able to protect themselves, and that would be my message to my colleagues in the House. We cannot avoid this historic moment,” Markey said at the press conference.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer praised the legislation’s passage in the Senate and said the parents of affected teens are “the reason we succeeded today.”

“I’ve heard the terrible stories: children, teenagers, perfectly normal, then some algorithm captures them online by accident, and they end up committing suicide shortly thereafter,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “You imagine being a parent and living with that.”

New rules for platforms

The original two bills, rolled into one legislative vehicle, respectively outline “duty of care” rules requiring platform creators to consider broad mental health categories when designing and operating their products as well as a prohibition of the use of personal data for targeted marketing.

The legislation would also mandate that platforms create an “easy-to-understand privacy dashboard” detailing how a minor’s personal information is collected, used and protected.

Other measures would include a prohibition on hidden algorithms, mechanisms for minors or parents to remove data, parental controls to restrict financial transactions and annual public reports from the platforms on “reasonably foreseeable” harms to children and teens and efforts underway to prevent them.

Enforcement

The new policies, if enacted, would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and any civil actions would be prosecuted by states in U.S. district court with advance notice to the FTC.

The legislation defines the online platforms as public-facing websites, social media applications, video games, messaging applications or video streaming services that are “used, or reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.”

Snap, the company behind the popular platform Snapchat, issued a statement specifically praising the Senate’s passage of the Kids Online Safety Act.

“The safety and well-being of young people on Snapchat is a top priority,” a Snap spokesperson said in a statement provided to States Newsroom. “That’s why Snap has been a long-time supporter of the Kids Online Safety Act. We applaud Senators Blackburn, Blumenthal and the roughly 70 other co-sponsors of this critical legislation for their leadership and commitment to the privacy and safety of young people.”

Opponents see ‘dangerous’ measure

A coalition of organizations advocating for First Amendment rights, privacy and the interests of LGBTQ minors urged the House to vote no on the legislation, criticizing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Evan Greer, director of the tech policy group Fight For the Future, also lambasted the bill as “dangerous and misguided” and “wildly broad.”

The coalition largely takes issue with the Kids Online Safety Act’s “duty of care” provision that requires companies to “prevent and mitigate” harms associated with anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders and suicidal behaviors.

During a joint virtual press conference hosted by the groups during the Senate vote, Greer described the provision as “a blank check for censorship of any piece of content that an administration could claim is harmful to kids.”

“What that means in practice, is that for example, a Trump administration FTC would get to dictate what types of content platforms can recommend or even show to younger users,” Greer said, referring to Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump.

Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Kids Online Safety Act is “nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to censor information that some consider objectionable”

“If enacted, KOSA could lead to information about health care, gender, identity, politics and more being removed from social media. And kids note that censorship will make them less and not more safe,” Leventoff said. “As one student recently told me, they don’t get sex education in school, and if information about sex is removed from the internet because platforms fear liability for hosting it, how else can they learn about sex?”

Teens in opposition

The ACLU brought roughly 300 teens to Capitol Hill Thursday to lobby against the legislation.

Dara Adkinson, of the organization TransOhio, said the legislation is “truly terrifying.”

Adkinson questioned whether state and federal authorities could argue that content about climate change or the nation’s history of slavery causes anxiety and should therefore be regulated.

Regarding content about transgender youth, Adkinson said: “We know there (are) people out there that would like us to not exist and having the lack of visibility of the kinds of resources found on the internet is the first step for many of these folks.”

Greer said the coalition is concerned about the role of “big tech” in society. Advocates would support a “heavily modified” version of the Kids Online Safety Act that focuses on regulating business practices, including targeted advertising or videos that automatically play and encourage continuous, addictive scrolling habits.

Greer said their organization is neutral on the legislation targeted at protecting children’s privacy, but that they would like to see comprehensive legislation that protects minors and adults alike.

“Censorship and privacy do not go together, and these should not be moving together,” Greer said.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/30/in-rare-bipartisan-vote-u-s-senate-passes-package-aimed-at-protecting-kids-online/feed/ 0
Biden urges term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices, new ethics rules https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/29/biden-urges-term-limits-for-u-s-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/29/biden-urges-term-limits-for-u-s-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules/#respond Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:27:25 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21267

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Laura Olson/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Before he leaves the Oval Office in January, President Joe Biden wants to see Congress take up a constitutional amendment restoring criminal liability for U.S. presidents in response to the recent Supreme Court decision granting the chief executive broad immunity.

Biden announced the “Not Above the Law Amendment” Monday along with endorsing other changes for the nation’s highest bench, potentially setting the tone and focus for the Democrat’s final months in office after he exited the 2024 race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris.

The proposal, released by the White House without text and detailed by Biden in a Washington Post op-ed, comes as public trust in the high court flags after recent ethics scandals and the overturning of Roe v. Wade that bucked popular opinion on abortion.

Biden is urging Congress to pass 18-year term limits for justices, with a president appointing a new justice every two years, and to approve enforceable conduct and ethics rules that would require disclosure of gifts, bar public political activity and ensure recusal from cases where a justice or their spouse has a financial or political stake.

Biden’s plan to “restore faith” in the nation’s highest court will likely hit a roadblock in the Republican-led U.S. House and in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim edge and any reforms could struggle to gain the necessary 60 votes. A constitutional amendment would also require passage in three-fourths of the states.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson called Biden’s proposal “dead on arrival.”

Writing in the Washington Post op-ed, Biden said a lack of legal repercussions for former President Donald Trump’s role in the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, intended to stop the peaceful transfer of power from one elected administration to another, is “only the beginning.”

“The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office,” he wrote.

He also referenced recent behavior from the court uncovered by ProPublica’s investigative journalists — including gifts and luxury travel given to the justices from political donors — as cause for alarm.

“What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach,” Biden wrote.

Biden is expected to speak on his plan Monday afternoon when he commemorates the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library in Texas.

Public Citizen, a group that advocates for changes at the Supreme Court, issued a statement Monday praising Biden’s proposal.

“The dramatic drop in public confidence in the Supreme Court both undercuts the Court’s legitimacy and endangers the legitimacy of the judicial branch as a whole,” wrote Lisa Gilbert, the organization’s co-president. “It is also critical that we undo the damage caused by the overreaching SCOTUS decision in the presidential immunity case and ensure that no person — including the president — is above the law.”

Johnson panned Biden’s announcement as a “radical overhaul” and “logical conclusion to the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional Democrats’ ongoing efforts to delegitimize the Supreme Court.”

“It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court’s recent decisions,” the Louisiana Republican said in a statement Monday.

But various acts of Congress have changed the court since the nation’s founding, including the number of seats on the bench, which have ranged from five to 10. The number of seats on the court was fixed at nine shortly after the Civil War, according to the court’s historical information that details the changes. In 1925, an act granted the justices the power to decide whether to hear a case, also known as certiorari.

The Republican National Committee issued a statement accusing Biden’s plan of being “Kamala’s scheme to pack the Supreme Court with far-left, radical judges who will render decisions based on politics, not the law — and insulate her dangerously liberal policy positions from scrutiny if she’s elected.”

Democrats decry the court

Efforts to pass an enforceable code of conduct at the Supreme Court are already underway among Democratic lawmakers.

Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, another Democratic committee member, introduced legislation last month that would prohibit justices from receiving gifts valued over $50, according to their offices.

The two lawmakers hosted a roundtable in early June excoriating the court after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to take action when the New York Times revealed that an upside-down U.S. flag — a sign of protest — flew outside Justice Samuel Alito’s Virginia home shortly after the Jan. 6 riot.

House progressives unsuccessfully urged Alito to recuse himself from two cases related to Jan. 6, including Trump’s appeal for immunity from federal election subversion charges.

A Supreme Court ethics bill sponsored by Rhode Island’s Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse advanced out of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary along party lines a year ago but has not received a floor vote.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/29/biden-urges-term-limits-for-u-s-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules/feed/ 0
President Joe Biden bows out of reelection campaign, endorses Kamala Harris https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/21/president-joe-biden-bows-out-of-reelection-campaign/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/21/president-joe-biden-bows-out-of-reelection-campaign/#respond Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:18:15 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21176

U.S. President Joe Biden departs the White House on July 15, 2024 in Washington, DC. Biden was traveling to Las Vegas, Nevada to deliver remarks at the NAACP National Convention and the UnidosUS Annual Conference (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race Sunday, he said in a letter posted to social media, creating an unprecedented vacancy atop the Democratic ticket one month before he was scheduled to officially accept his party’s nomination.

In a followup post less than 30 minutes later, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place as the Democratic nominee.

Biden’s withdrawal came after a weeks-long pressure campaign from party insiders following a disastrous June 27 debate performance against GOP candidate former President Donald Trump.

The move throws an already-unusual presidential race into further chaos, and it was not immediately clear Sunday how Democrats would choose a replacement for Biden in November’s election, though Harris would have a strong claim to lead the ticket.

Biden praised Harris as “an extraordinary partner” in the administration’s accomplishments.

Biden, who has been fighting a COVID-19 infection at home in Delaware since last week, was not specific about his reasons for stepping aside, but said he believed it was in the country’s best interest.

“It has been the great honor of my life to serve as your President,” he wrote in the one-page letter. “And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Biden, 81, appeared frail and confused at several points throughout the debate, leading to worries among elected Democrats and the party’s voters that he was no longer up to the task of governing or contesting Trump’s bid to win back the White House.

As several congressional Democrats called for him to quit the race, others asked that he ramp up his public schedule and include more unrehearsed appearances that could demonstrate his fitness.

But a more robust schedule of news interviews, press conferences and campaign rallies did not sufficiently quiet the Democratic voices saying Biden’s candidacy was likely to throw the presidential race to Trump – whom Biden and others have described as an existential threat to U.S. democracy – and deeply handicap Democrats in other races up and down November’s ballot.

On Friday, Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico brought the number of senators calling on Biden to drop out to four. A day earlier, Montana Sen. Jon Tester said Biden should drop his reelection campaign and that Democrats should hold an open nomination process at their Chicago convention next month.

In the U.S. House, 29 Democrats had called for Biden to withdraw from the race by the end of the day July 19.

In a post following the announcement to his social media site, Truth Social, Trump said Biden was “never” fit to serve as president.

“Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!” Trump wrote. “He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement. All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t – And now, look what he’s done to our Country.”

More details of announcement

In the letter, Biden praised his administration’s accomplishments over three-and-a-half years, saying he’d worked to make “historic investments” in the country, lowered prescription drug costs, nominated the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court and “passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world.”

“Together we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,”  Biden wrote. “We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world.”

Biden said he would “speak to the Nation later this week” about the decision.

He praised Harris and other supporters.

“For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected,” he wrote. “I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.”

In follow-up posts, Biden said he was endorsing Harris and added a fundraising link.

“My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President,” he said. “And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

Trump gains in polls

The about face in what was to be a 2020 presidential election rematch leaves Democrats searching for a new candidate as Trump, who promises authoritarian-style leadership, has gained support in recent polls.

With just 107 days until Election Day, Biden’s move marks the latest date in modern presidential history that a candidate has withdrawn from the race.

President Lyndon Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection that year, leaving Democratic delegates to decide on a replacement – ultimately Vice President Hubert Humphrey – at the party’s convention that summer in Chicago.

Harris appears to be in a strong position to replace Biden as the party’s standard bearer, though questions remain about how the process will play out and who would become the vice presidential nominee.

Democrats praise decision

Reaction poured in shortly after the Sunday afternoon announcement, with Democrats largely praising Biden’s record and calling his decision courageous.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that he understood Biden’s decision to step out of the race was “not easy, but he once again put his country, his party, and our future first.”

“Joe Biden has not only been a great president and a great legislative leader but he is a truly amazing human being,” the New York Democrat said.

Several Republicans called for Biden to resign his office.

“If Joe Biden is not fit to run for President, he is not fit to serve as President,” House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X. “He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough.”

A crescendoing chorus to step down

Biden faced calls for him to abandon his reelection bid from congressional Democrats, even as he tried to stabilize the debate aftershock by holding a series of campaign rallies, sitting down for interviews and holding a press conference at the annual NATO conference.

Democratic lawmakers largely presented a public front of support for Biden in statements and passing interviews in the U.S. Capitol hallways with reporters.

What began as a trickle of dissent from rank-and-file Democrats — beginning with Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and a handful of doubtful senior House Democrats — steadily grew to a torrent by Friday.

50-year career in Washington

Biden’s exit marks the closure of a long, storied career in Washington, including 38 years in the U.S. Senate, featuring stints leading the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary committees, and eight years as vice president under President Barack Obama.

Biden’s presidency was punctuated with major economic wins for Democrats, beginning with nearly $2 trillion to combat the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

His leadership with a Democratic majority in Congress resulted in substantial nationwide infrastructure investments, drove financial incentives to tackle climate change and revive the U.S. global role in semiconductor manufacturing, and strengthened flagging tax enforcement.

However, low approval ratings followed Biden throughout his presidency as Americans aimed their frustrations over inflation at the White House and assigned blame for record numbers of border crossings as a divided Congress – after Democrats lost their House majority in the 2022 midterms – failed to pass immigration restrictions negotiated with the administration.

Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war also hurt his support among young and progressive voters as Israel’s continued offensive against Hamas militants in the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip killed tens of thousands of civilians. Protesters against the U.S. supply of weapons to Israel interrupted dozens of Biden’s reelection campaign events through 2024.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/21/president-joe-biden-bows-out-of-reelection-campaign/feed/ 0
Top Trump adviser says 2024 election ‘not over’ until Inauguration Day https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/18/top-trump-adviser-says-2024-election-not-over-until-inauguration-day/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/18/top-trump-adviser-says-2024-election-not-over-until-inauguration-day/#respond Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:02:38 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21135

Chris LaCivita, former President Donald Trump’s 2024 co-campaign manager, participated in a lengthy interview with Politico at the Turner House near the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Thursday, July 18 (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

MILWAUKEE — A top Trump campaign official said Thursday that the 2024 presidential race will not be over until Inauguration Day, rather than after Election Day on Nov. 5 — when voters across the nation go to the polls to cast their ballots and a result normally is projected.

The assertion from Chris LaCivita at a Politico event is notable given former President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to President Joe Biden, and the ensuing violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

It is also significant given that the U.S. Department of Justice alleges after Election Day in 2020, Trump co-conspired with lawyers and election officials in seven states to produce false slates of electors. According to the indictment, those slates were intended to be delivered to Vice President Mike Pence during the routine certification in a joint session of Congress in early January following presidential elections.

“It’s not over until he puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath. It’s not over until then. It’s not over on Election Day, it’s over on Inauguration Day, cause I wouldn’t put anything past anybody,” LaCivita, Trump’s co-campaign manager, told Politico’s Jonathan Martin during a lengthy interview open to press and attendees, and livestreamed, at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

Trump did not attend Biden’s inauguration, and he and many Republican lawmakers continue to repeat false claims that he won.

LaCivita interrupted with his comment when Martin was in the middle of asking about the prospects for Democrats on Election Day.

“It’s also possible that Donald Trump can lose,” Martin followed up. LaCivita said the campaign will remain focused on the issues.

A few moments later Martin asked LaCivita if he thinks it’s politically wise for Trump to continue campaigning on pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters.

“I always find it amazing that you guys are the ones that bring it up,” LaCivita said, referring to the press.

“That’s not true,” Martin replied.

“I’ve been in a lot of interviews where it’s the first question you guys ask,” LaCivita said. “What we’re talking about right now are the issues that matter, Social Security, protecting Social Security and Medicare, closing the border. I mean we have so much to talk about and that’s where our focus is.”

“In a perfect Chris LaCivita world (Trump) would never say the words ‘Jan. 6 hostages’ again,” Martin followed up.

LaCivita immediately responded and repeated: “Social Security, Medicaid, closing the border, deportation — yeah I said it — all of those things.”

In March, Trump told reporters he was open to cutting Social Security and other entitlement programs as a way to address the national debt.

Election fraud falsely claimed

Trump repeated false claims of election fraud in the months following the 2020 election and lost numerous court challenges in states that he insisted he won.

The fight erupted in political violence on Jan. 6, when a mob of Trump supporters overran the U.S. Capitol Police with improvised weapons and the goal of stopping Congress from certifying the election results.

The historic criminal indictment of a former sitting U.S. president — handed up from a federal grand jury in August 2023 — charges Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstructing an official proceeding, among other felony counts.

Trump has successfully delayed the federal election subversion case as he appealed his motion to dismiss based on president criminal immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices on July 1 ruled in a 6-3 decision that former presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts, and sparked major questions over what type of evidence can be used in any such prosecution.

‘How do you utilize’ an assassination attempt?

Reaction to the attempted assassination against Trump on Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, has evolved over the RNC’s first three days. It’s gone from initial concerns about political violence to rallying around the event as a symbol of how “Trump Strong” can reshape America, as Donald Trump Jr. said Wednesday night.

Trump supporters wore fake bandages on their ears at the RNC as a political symbol, much like the red “Make America Great Again” hat.

“The energy or the emotion that you feel when something like that happens, how do you utilize it? How do you utilize it to get to where you need to be?” LaCivita said.

“How do you utilize it to win an election or how do you utilize it to bring the country together?” Martin followed up.

“I think it’s both,” LaCivita said.

The co-campaign manager sidestepped a question about whether Trump will make an effort during his RNC speech to tell supporters not to believe conspiracy theories circulating online that the shooting was a Democratic plot. Martin asked if LaCivita agreed that Trump tamping down accusations against his opposing political party would be “good for the country.”

LaCivita said the campaign is planning Trump’s speech to be “forward focused.”

“I mean look, there are not enough facts, and it’s not just up to us to talk about the facts resulting around what happened,” LaCivita said as he added to the chorus of criticism of the U.S. Secret Service and calling on its head to resign.

Hours after the shooting Saturday, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio — announced Monday at the RNC as Trump’s vice presidential pick — wrote on social media that “today is not just some isolated incident.”

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s assassination attempt,” he wrote.

Project 2025 a ‘pain in the ass’ for Trump

Of the themes permeating the RNC, the major conservative Project 2025 has dogged Trump’s campaign in a way that LaCivita described as “a pain in the ass.”

The 922-page document spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation roadmaps a presidential transition and plan to overhaul government administrations, to lobby Congress for national abortion restrictions and restoration of “the American family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”

The organization held an all-day policy fest five blocks from the RNC convention hall Monday.

Trump denies any connection to the project, despite former Trump administration officials identifying their previous positions in the project materials. A CNN analysis found that 140 who previously worked for Trump helped on Project 2025.

LaCivita said any claim that Trump is connected to the project is “utter bulls—t.”

“They do not speak for the campaign.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/18/top-trump-adviser-says-2024-election-not-over-until-inauguration-day/feed/ 0
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents criminal case https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/15/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-criminal-case/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/15/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-criminal-case/#respond Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:35:04 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21063

A classified documents case against former U.S. President Donald Trump was dismissed on Monday. In this photo, Trump speaks to the media as he arrives for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30 in New York City. (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)

MILWAUKEE —The federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump was dismissed Monday by a Florida judge on the grounds that the Department of Justice unlawfully appointed special counsel Jack Smith.

The order, while likely to be appealed, makes the possibility even more remote that Trump will be tried before the election on any of the federal charges pending against him. The order came on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, during which Trump will be officially nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential candidate.

Trump, who on Saturday was injured at a Pennsylvania rally in what is being investigated as an attempted assassination, has also been federally charged in Washington, D.C., for his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results. The case is pending as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision.

In May, Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York state court for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s sentencing has been delayed until September while the court reviews the federal immunity decision.

Trump has also been indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges — though the case is bogged down in personnel matters — and has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions in penalties following multiple civil suits.

Trump reaction: Dismiss all ‘witch hunts’

Trump, who arrived in Milwaukee Sunday, wrote on his social media platform Monday that all cases against him should be dropped following the attempt on his life by the 20-year-old gunman identified by law enforcement as the shooter. The gunman was killed at the scene.

“As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a decades old photo in a line with her then husband does not count), and the Georgia ‘Perfect’ Phone Call charges,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

House Speaker Mike Johnson declared the ruling “good news for America and for the rule of law” and a “critically important step” in unifying the country after Saturday’s shooting in Western Pennsylvania.

In a statement issued from Milwaukee, the Louisiana Republican said “House Republicans repeatedly argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith abused his office’s authority in pursuit of President Trump, and now a federal judge has ruled Smith never possessed the authority in the first place.”

“As we work to unify this country following the failed assassination attempt of President Trump, we must also work to end the lawfare and political witch hunts that have unfairly targeted President Trump and destroyed the American people’s faith in our system of justice,” Johnson continued.

Republican lawmakers largely echoed Johnson.

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York said in a statement that she applauds District Judge Aileen Cannon’s “courage and wisdom” to dismiss the case brought by the “corrupt” special counsel.

“Case Dismissed! Big win for the rule of law,” South Carolina Congressman Ralph Norman wrote on X.

The GOP’s Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana also posted on the platform: “Winning. More to come. MAGA.”

The dismissal order

In Monday’s 93-page order, Cannon wrote Smith’s appointment violates two clauses of the U.S. Constitution that govern how presidential administrations and Congress appoint and approve “Officers of the United States” and how taxpayer money can be used to pay their salaries and other expenses.

“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law,” wrote Cannon, who sits on the bench in the Southern District of Florida.

Attorneys general have appointed special counsels to investigate politically sensitive matters several times in recent decades, including in the case that led to a federal prosecution against Hunter Biden, the president’ son.

Cannon was nominated by Trump in 2020 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate later that year.

In February, Trump’s team filed the motion to dismiss the case, accusing Smith of being unlawfully appointed and paid.

The classified documents case against Trump presented a historic first for the United States — a former sitting president had never been charged with federal crimes.

A federal grand jury handed up a 37-count indictment in June 2023 charging the former president and his aide Walt Nauta with felonies related to mishandling classified documents after his term in office, including storing them at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate.

A little over a month later a new indictment was handed up, adding new charges against the former president and also adding Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira as a co-defendant.

Cannon’s order dismisses the July 2023 superseding indictment.

The court will now close the case and cancel any scheduled hearings. Any pending motions are considered moot, according to Cannon’s order.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democrats slam ‘misguided ruling’

Cannon’s dismissal of the case was met with shock from Democrats, who view Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents as a serious, prosecutable offense.

The indictment against Trump detailed how U.S. government documents marked “secret” and “confidential” were stored at Mar-a-Lago, an active social club in Palm Beach, in a ballroom, bathroom and shower, bedroom, office space and storage area.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Monday that the “breathtakingly misguided ruling flies in the face of long-accepted practice and repetitive judicial precedence.”

“It is wrong on the law and must be appealed immediately. This is further evidence that Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned,” the New York Democrat said.

Conor Lamb, a former congressman from Pennsylvania, wrote on X that Saturday’s failed assassination on Trump does not exonerate him from taking and keeping classified records as he left the Oval Office.

“In the same way that the Secret Service’s failure to protect Trump was unacceptable, it was unacceptable for Trump to fail to protect our country’s secrets.  Trump is a victim of the 1st but that doesn’t change that he is the perpetrator of the 2nd.  Accountability for both,” Lamb wrote.

Not Above the Law, a coalition of 150 organizations, issued a statement calling the ruling “flatly wrong.”

“The special counsel statute is clear. Its constitutionality has been upheld by multiple courts in the past, and Judge Cannon has no grounds to reject such a well-settled principle,” read the statement signed by the organization’s four co-chairs.

“Accountability, protecting the rule of law, and justice cannot be further delayed. We expect Judge Cannon’s ruling not only to be swiftly appealed, but also promptly reversed,” continued the statement from Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; David Sievers, interim organizing director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/15/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-criminal-case/feed/ 0
Republican National Convention launches Monday amid some grumbling over abortion stance https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/13/republican-national-convention-launches-monday-amid-some-grumbling-over-abortion-stance/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/13/republican-national-convention-launches-monday-amid-some-grumbling-over-abortion-stance/#respond Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:55:06 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=21020

A worker helps prepare the Fiserv Forum for the start of the Republican National Convention on July 11, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Republican National Convention will be held in Milwaukee from July 15-18 (Joe Raedle/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Thousands of Republicans will gather in Milwaukee, Wisconsin beginning Monday for the party’s presidential nominating convention — an opportunity for the GOP to showcase its candidates up and down the ballot and unify behind Donald Trump.

The RNC released its trimmed-down party platform the week prior to the convention, after foregoing one entirely in 2020. And while many Republicans in Congress said during interviews they either support it, or hadn’t read it, some were critical it adopts Trump’s position that abortion access be left up to states — one of the top issues in the presidential race.

The platform wraps in traditional party goals as well as others tied to Trump. But it also competes with attention drawn to the Heritage Foundation’s massive far-right Project 2025 policy agenda, which Trump has repeatedly disavowed.

Democrats and President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign have targeted the Project 2025 document spearheaded by former Trump administration officials — which says the president should work with Congress on abortion policy — as an example of an extreme GOP agenda.

The Heritage Foundation is scheduled to host an all-day “policy fest” on Monday at the RNC Convention, headlined by conservative media personality Tucker Carlson and former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, among others.

The RNC convention could also be the showcase for Trump announcing his running mate, after months of speculation about who would get the nod. As of Friday, Trump had not revealed his pick, though speculation centered around Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

There was also little information available ahead of the convention as to the lineup and schedule of speakers in official sessions throughout the week, which culminates with the nomination of Trump on Thursday and his speech.

Unhappiness over abortion stance

GOP members of Congress said in interviews they would have liked to have seen a national abortion ban in the platform.

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he preferred the GOP’s last official platform, which called for a nationwide abortion ban after 20 weeks.

“I’m pro-life and I like the way it was previously,” Cassidy said.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said while she hadn’t read the full platform, she had read the section about abortion, as well as a few others.

“I am pro-life and I am always going to be adamantly pro-life,” Ernst said. “And I think what we’re going to have to do is work very hard to educate the American people on the value of life. So would I like to see more robust (language) in the platform? Certainly. But that’s not the way it’s going to be. So we’re just going to have to continue fighting for life.”

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said the platform places a “new emphasis on the states” to regulate abortion access, largely as a result of Trump pressing for that structure in an attempt to appeal to independent voters, though Lankford said it won’t bind Republicans in Congress.

“Obviously, this is a platform that’s wrapped around him, it’s a new model for presidential platforms to be wrapped around the candidate,” Lankford said.

Trump has shifted the GOP platform away from pressing for a nationwide law, in part, because he doesn’t believe the votes are there at the moment, Lankford said. But that doesn’t mean Republican lawmakers will stop talking about their beliefs or working to build support for a nationwide law.

“It’s a common ground statement,” Lankford said of the platform. “But for those of us that believe in the value of every single child — and we should do whatever we can to be able to protect the lives of children — we will continue to be able to speak out on those things.”

Mike Pence, former Indiana governor and vice president during Trump’s first term in office, released a statement saying the “RNC platform is a profound disappointment to the millions of pro-life Republicans that have always looked to the Republican Party to stand for life.”

“Unfortunately, this platform is part of a broader retreat in our party, trying to remain vague for political expedience,” he wrote.

Pence called on delegates attending the RNC convention to “restore language to our party’s platform recognizing the sanctity of human life and affirming that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

Shorter, vaguer

The 16-page platform is much shorter than years past and is at times vague about the goals the Republican Party hopes to accomplish if voters give them unified control of the federal government during the next two years.

The official document was put together behind closed doors.

It says that after nearly 50 years, “because of us,” the ability to regulate abortion has “been given to the States and to a vote of the People.”

“We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments),” the new RNC platform states.

The 2016 Republican Party platform, by contrast, was 66 pages long and mentioned abortion more than 30 times, calling for Congress to pass legislation that banned abortion after 20-weeks gestation.

That previous platform also said that the RNC respected “the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.”

‘Nothing going to happen up here in the Senate’

Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas said that it’s extremely unlikely either political party gets the 60 votes needed to advance abortion legislation through the legislative filibuster in the Senate, making the states the more practical place to enact laws.

“There’s not 48 votes on this issue one way or the other up here, let alone 60,” Marshall said. “There’s nothing going to happen up here in the Senate in the near future, if forever.”

Marshall said that Republicans “won” in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and that the issue is now left up to voters.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said a full GOP platform shorter than in previous years is a good development, since people might actually read it.

“Nobody’s gonna read the Sears catalog, like previous ones,” Grassley said. “And I think if we can get people to read the Republican platform, it’ll be a great thing for the campaign. I think it’d be a great thing for government generally.”

Grassley said he couldn’t make a judgment about the new abortion language, since he didn’t remember the language from the 2016 platform.

Voters expect all of GOP on same page

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt said she hadn’t read through the platform, but that she was encouraged some anti-abortion groups expressed support for the new language.

“I’m proud to be pro-life and proud to support the party and President Trump,” Britt said.

Voters, she said, expect to hear from a unified Republican Party during convention week as well as from one that focuses on policy.

“I think people want a secure border, they want stable prices, they want a more secure world,” Britt said. “And I think we need to talk about those things — talk about not only where we are, but our vision for moving forward.”

Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, didn’t directly answer a question about whether he supports removing a nationwide abortion ban from the party’s platform.

“Look, I think they did good work on the platform,” Daines said. “We’re a party that believes in life, we’re a pro-life party. I think they did a good job.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said that voters want to hear Republicans unified at the convention.

“I think they want to hear a unifying message for the future,” Capito said. “I think they want to hear how things will be different and better, especially on the economy and border and international. And I just think, you know, a united front is probably the most important.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said the GOP should emphasize how it differs from Democrats during the RNC Convention.

“I think that they need to hear a message of unity and the contrast between what Republicans can accomplish on inflation and border,” Boozman said.

National treasures, women’s sports

The RNC’s new platform includes familiar GOP policy goals as well as some that came along after Trump became the party’s nominee eight years ago.

For example, it calls for Republicans to “promote beauty in Public Architecture and preserve our Natural Treasures. We will build cherished symbols of our Nation, and restore genuine Conservation efforts.”

It also calls on GOP lawmakers to “support the restoration of Classic Liberal Arts Education,” though it doesn’t detail that particular issue.

The rest of the platform is pretty standard for the types of initiatives and policy goals that Republicans have traditionally pursued.

For example, it calls on Republicans to slash “wasteful Government spending,” “restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration,” make provisions from the 2017 tax law permanent and “will keep men out of women’s sports.”

Trump running mate

The RNC convention could also include Trump announcing who will campaign with him at the top of the ticket.

His last running mate, Pence, began distancing himself from Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which included calls from the mob to kill Pence, and the construction of a scaffold for public hangings on the National Mall.

Pence was in the Capitol building that day and was removed from danger by his security detail as the pro-Trump mob beat police officers, broke into the building and disrupted Congress’ certification of Biden as the country’s next president.

Trump, without revealing his vice presidential selection, wrote Thursday on social media that he is “looking very much forward to being in Milwaukee next week.”

“The great people of Wisconsin will reward us for choosing their State for the Republican National Convention. From there we go on to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! See you next week,” he posted on Truth Social, his online platform where he regularly publishes comments and statements.

The vice presidential candidate typically gives a speech on Wednesday night, so Trump is expected to make his announcement before then.

Project 2025

Conservative operatives striving to elect Trump to the White House have been circulating the 922-page Project 2025 plan for nearly 15 months.

Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with more than 100 organizations, the policy agenda titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” presents a roadmap should Trump win in November.

The “goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State,” according to the organization’s description of the mandate.

The lengthy mandate sets forth core promises to “restore the family” and overhaul government agencies.

The document states that “(i)n particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.”

The mandate is just one pillar under the multi-pronged “Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project” that also includes a presidential administration training academy and a 180-day “playbook” aimed “to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies.” The project is led by two former Trump administration officials.

The Biden-Harris campaign and Democrats have repeatedly criticized Project 2025 in comments and campaign emails.

“If implemented, Project 2025 would be the latest attempt in Donald Trump’s full on assault on reproductive freedom,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at a rally in North Carolina on Thursday.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during a press conference Thursday that the plan is “dangerous, it’s dastardly and it’s diabolical.”

“Project 2025, the Trump and extreme MAGA Republican agenda, will criminalize abortion care and impose a nationwide ban on reproductive freedom,” Jeffries said.

Trump and his campaign deny any connection to the project.

“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it,” Trump wrote Thursday on his social media platform Truth Social.

“The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part,” he continued. “By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!”

Trump has delivered keynote speeches at Heritage Foundation events multiple times. An analysis by CNN showed 140 former Trump administration staffers were involved in the project. Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president, told the New York Times in April 2023 that Trump had been briefed on the project.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/13/republican-national-convention-launches-monday-amid-some-grumbling-over-abortion-stance/feed/ 0
NATO leaders in D.C. condemn Russia as Zelenskyy thanks Congress for Ukraine aid https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/11/nato-leaders-in-d-c-condemn-russia-as-zelenskyy-thanks-congress-for-ukraine-aid/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/11/nato-leaders-in-d-c-condemn-russia-as-zelenskyy-thanks-congress-for-ukraine-aid/#respond Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:00:29 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20985

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, meets with House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., at the U.S. Capitol on July 10, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited U.S. lawmakers Wednesday on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington, where world leaders are pledging additional support to the Eastern European nation as it battles Russia’s continued assault.

Zelenskyy met House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other senators behind closed doors as the 32 NATO members huddled across town crafting a summit declaration that stopped short of a full invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance.

Zelenskyy last visited Capitol Hill in December as a Republican lawmakers and the White House wrangled for months over new aid to Ukraine nearly two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion. Congress later approved $60 billion in assistance in April.

That measure spent two months stalled in the House as Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, held a series of meetings on whether that chamber should act.

Johnson ultimately decided to move forward, releasing four bills that would each receive separate votes, before being bundled as one package and sent to the Senate.

Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting that Zelenskyy provided an update on the situation in Ukraine and that the two shared a “good conversation.”

“And you know, expressed their gratitude for the assistance of the United States and their hope that they can prevail there and that you know, good will triumph over evil,” according to a transcript provided by Johnson’s office.

When asked if he supported restrictions on how Ukraine can use weapons provided by the U.S., Johnson responded, “I explained that the, the will of Congress was to allow them the flexibility to use the weapons and assistance that were sent to prosecute the war as they see fit. So I’m a supporter of that. I believe that’s what Congress intended.”

The Biden administration recently permitted Ukraine to use U.S. weapons for limited strikes over the Russian border.

Invitation to visit Ukraine

Prompted by a reporter’s question prior to the meeting, Zelenskyy invited Johnson to visit Ukraine, but the speaker responded that his schedule will be tight until after the presidential election in November.

“It’s difficult to find a time to go, but I’d certainly like to,” Johnson said.

The face-to-face sit-down with Johnson followed Zelenskyy’s earlier meeting with a bipartisan Senate delegation led by Schumer and McConnell.

Video published by C-SPAN shows Zelenskyy shaking hands with the New York Democrat and Kentucky Republican before entering the Kennedy Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building, where he awarded them the Ukrainian Order Of Merit First Class.

Zelenskyy said in a statement he and the lawmakers “discussed the current battlefield situation and American defense support. I informed them about Russia’s increased missile terror against Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure.”

“I extend my gratitude to the President of the United States, both chambers of Congress, both parties, and the American people for their support of Ukraine,” he wrote on social media shortly after the meeting.

Schumer described the “honor” of welcoming Zelenskyy to the Senate.

“MAGA extremists—led by Trump—wanted to just let Putin have his way,” Schumer wrote on social media, referring to Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, and echoing his earlier comments on the Senate floor.

“The Senate showed what leadership looks like by pushing to deliver the support Ukraine needs. America stands with Ukraine,” he said.

McConnell posted a statement on X saying that decades ago, President Ronald Reagan “reminded the world that ‘support for freedom fighters is self-defense.’ There’s no daylight between America’s interests and the cause of Ukraine’s defense. Proud, as always, to welcome President @ZelenskyyUA to the U.S. Senate.”

Russia condemned

Late Wednesday afternoon, NATO members announced their official summit declaration, condemning Russia as the “most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security” and committing additional military equipment, training and funding for Ukraine.

“We reaffirm that we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.  The Summit decisions by NATO and the NATO-Ukraine Council, combined with Allies’ ongoing work, constitute a bridge to Ukraine’s membership in NATO,” the declaration later stated.

President Joe Biden opened the NATO meeting with brief public remarks Wednesday afternoon ahead of a closed-door working session among the member nations.

“Right now, Russia is on a wartime footing with regard to defense production,” Biden said. “… We cannot, in my view, we cannot allow the alliance to fall behind.”

Biden also delivered opening remarks for the alliance’s 75th anniversary event Tuesday night in Washington during which he declared NATO as “more powerful than ever.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/11/nato-leaders-in-d-c-condemn-russia-as-zelenskyy-thanks-congress-for-ukraine-aid/feed/ 0
Biden commends NATO strength, pledges more aid for Ukraine against Russia https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-commends-nato-strength-pledges-more-aid-for-ukraine-against-russia/ https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-commends-nato-strength-pledges-more-aid-for-ukraine-against-russia/#respond Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:50:31 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20963

President Joe Biden delivers remarks during the NATO 75th anniversary celebration at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium on July 9, 2024, in Washington. NATO leaders convened this week for an annual summit to discuss strategies and commitments and mark the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden said NATO “is more powerful than ever” in remarks Tuesday to honor the 75th anniversary of the alliance and reaffirm allied support for Ukraine one day after Russian missile strikes on a children’s hospital killed dozens in Kyiv.

Biden spoke at the annual North American Treaty Organization’s summit happening this week in Washington, D.C., where the 12 original member nations signed the Washington Treaty in 1949.

Heads of state fanned out across Washington, visiting lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday afternoon. Ukraine is not one of the 32 NATO member nations, but the country is in discussions to join and the alliance has sided with Ukraine in its war with Russia.

“It’s a pleasure to host you all in this milestone year, to look back with pride on all we’ve achieved and look ahead to our shared future with strength and resolve,” Biden said during the opening ceremony.

Biden’s 15-minute address came after a dozen days of near constant focus on his health and mental acuity after he flubbed his June 27 presidential debate performance against former President Donald Trump, whose criticism of NATO is well documented.

Biden spoke forcefully about the alliance’s history from the stage in the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, where world leaders and hundreds of dignitaries from NATO’s 32 member nations gathered, joined by other partner nations.

“Together we rebuilt Europe from the ruins of war, held high the torch of liberty during long decades of the Cold War. When former adversaries became fellow democracies, we welcomed them into the alliance,” Biden said.

“When war broke out in the Balkans, we intervened to restore peace and stop ethnic cleansing. When the United States was attacked on September 11, our NATO allies, all of you, stood with us, invoking Article Five for the first time in NATO history, treating an attack on us as an attack on all of us. A breathtaking display of friendship that the American people will never, ever, ever forget.”

Military aid

Biden used the remarks to announce a joint package of air defense systems for Ukraine in conjunction with Germany, Romania, the Netherlands and Italy. The package is expected to include donations of advanced missile launching systems known as Patriot batteries as well as other equipment, according to a joint statement issued by the White House shortly after Biden’s speech.

Biden described Russian President Vladimir Putin as NATO’s primary antagonist.

He praised the alliance for moving “swiftly” after Putin further invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and said “the war will end with Ukraine remaining a free and independent country.” Putin previously annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula by force in 2014.

“Before this war, Putin thought NATO was going to break. Today, NATO is stronger than it’s ever been in its history,” Biden declared.

Biden concluded the ceremony by honoring NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the U.S.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-commends-nato-strength-pledges-more-aid-for-ukraine-against-russia/feed/ 0
United by their objections to Trump, congressional Dems largely close ranks behind Biden https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/09/united-by-their-objections-to-trump-congressional-dems-largely-close-ranks-behind-biden/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/09/united-by-their-objections-to-trump-congressional-dems-largely-close-ranks-behind-biden/#respond Tue, 09 Jul 2024 22:28:13 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20959

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters as he leaves a meeting at the U.S. Capitol on July 08, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Jeffries reiterated his support for President Joe Biden, saying the party is backing Biden to defeat the Republican presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats appeared to quell some inner tumult over supporting President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, after highly anticipated internal meetings Tuesday showed the president retained considerable support from the Congressional Black Caucus and other lawmakers in public statements.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Democrats from both chambers largely declined to detail their closed-door conversations. But they said they are lining up behind Biden, nearly two weeks after his debate performance set in motion prolonged speculation about his fitness for office. The party meetings among lawmakers were the first since the June 27 debate.

Biden issued a defiant letter to party members Monday saying that he will not exit the race, and Democrats interviewed by States Newsroom insisted they are uniting as the party heads toward his official nomination later this summer.

Lawmakers left open whether perfect harmony was achieved — a New Jersey Democrat at day’s end joined a handful of other Democrats urging Biden to drop out — but one message was clear: They do not want to see former President Donald Trump in the Oval Office again.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada briskly exited the House chamber and said Democrats are focused on “beating Donald Trump and electing Democrats to the House majority.” The CBC met with Biden virtually Monday night.

When asked whether Biden’s unsteady debate performance and the anxiety it’s caused presents an obstacle for House colleagues running in tight races, Horsford answered, “The president is the nominee.”

Another defection

While a steady stream of Democrats said they would back Biden, New Jersey Democrat Mikie Sherrill became the seventh House Democrat urging Biden to drop out of the race.

“I know President Biden cares deeply about the future of our country. That’s why I am asking that he declare that he won’t run for reelection,” Sherrill posted on social media shortly before 5 p.m. Eastern.

Those who spoke out against Biden’s reelection bid in previous days included Angie Craig of Minnesota, Lloyd Doggett of Texas, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Mike Quigley of Illinois and Adam Smith of Washington.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, of New York, who was among those calling for Biden to exit the race in a private call on Sunday, walked back his comments Tuesday when he told reporters “we have to support him.”

At the White House briefing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said expressions of support from members of the Congressional Black Caucus were key to solidifying Biden’s backing among Hill Democrats.

“We respect members of Congress,” Jean-Pierre said. “We respect their view. But I also want to say there’s also a long list of congressional members who have been very clear in support of this president.”

Jean-Pierre cited strong statements of support from CBC members Joyce Beatty of Ohio and Troy Carter of Louisiana following the caucus’ virtual meeting with Biden on Monday.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia said Tuesday members had an opportunity to “express themselves” during the closed-door House Democratic meeting.

“Leadership listened, and I think what needs to happen is we need to all come together to decide that we’re not going to be a circular firing squad with Joe Biden in the middle,” Johnson said. “We are going to abide by his decision, and if his decision, as he has previously stated, is to stay in, then he’s gonna be our nominee and we need to all get behind him.”

When asked by States Newsroom whether House Democrats in vulnerable seats now face more potholes on the road to November, potentially costing the party a chance to flip the House, Johnson replied, “No, I think (Biden’s) got a strong record to run on, and the opposition, Donald Trump, has to run against that strong record. So we need to start running on our record, and against the nominee of the other party. And the American people know the difference.”

‘We concluded that Joe Biden is old’

Democratic senators, leaving a nearly two-hour private lunch meeting later Tuesday, had similar comments to their House counterparts, reiterating the president is their nominee, though worries remained.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman said that everyone knows about Biden’s age, but that alone won’t lead the party to bump him out as their nominee.

“We concluded that Joe Biden is old, and we found out, and the polling came back that he’s old,” Fetterman said. “But guess what? We also agreed that, you know, like, he’s our guy, and that’s where we’re at.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a longtime friend and close ally of Biden, argued that Trump is a far worse choice than Biden.

“Donald Trump had a terrible debate,” Coons said. “Donald Trump said things on that debate stage over and over and over that were outright lies filled with vengeance, violated the basic standards of our democracy, and yet we are spending all of our time talking about one candidate’s performance and not the other. Donald Trump’s performance on that debate stage should be disqualifying.”

Coons said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke during the meeting, saying “broadly constructive things, just sort of setting the groundwork of our discussion.”

Coons said he was “not gonna get into the private conversation we just had in the caucus” when asked whether anyone at the meeting called for Biden to not be the nominee. But he added that “folks expressed a range of views in ways that I think were constructive and positive.”

Vice President Kamala Harris’ viability as a potential replacement for Biden didn’t come up during the meeting, Coons said.

Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock underlined his support for Biden following the meeting, saying “what I think is most important right now is what the American people think.”

“We’re getting feedback on that. I think it’s important for the president in this moment, in any moment, to hear what the people are saying. That’s what democracy is all about,” Warnock said. “Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to believe much in democracy. He said he wants to be a dictator on day one, and with their ruling several days ago, the Supreme Court is setting the table for him to continue to be a dictator. That’s what’s at stake in this election: democracy itself.”

Asked whether Biden is the best person to defeat Trump, Warnock said Biden is “making that case as campaigns do” and “hearing back from the American people.”

Asked whether Biden can win Georgia, he said: “I can tell you that no one thought I could win Georgia but I did.”

Project 2025 fears

Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont told States Newsroom that House Democrats’ meeting led to some cohesion.

“The unity as it exists is that we’re all completely committed to making sure that Trump is not the next president,” Balint said. “That’s the unity, and the unity of wanting the president to be out campaigning vigorously on his record.”

Balint, holding in her hand a copy of the Stop the Comstock Act, said, tearing up, that she worries about a nationwide abortion ban and other priorities in the far-right Project 2025 publication.

The nearly 1,000-page policy roadmap is a product of the Heritage Foundation in anticipation of Republicans gaining control of the White House and Congress. Trump and his campaign have repeatedly distanced themselves from the document.

“Trump is a demagogue, I am the child of a man whose father was killed in the Holocaust. I’m really like ‘What can I do day in and day out to make sure we don’t lose the House?’ because we are the blue line,” Balint said.

The Comstock Act is an 1873 law that could provide an avenue for a future Republican presidential administration to ban the mailing of abortion medications. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced companion bills to repeal the sections of the law that could hinder abortion access.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told States Newsroom that Biden has “actively thrown weight behind the lawmaking and policy ideas of younger and progressive members,” and that she remains committed to supporting him.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said after the Democratic senators’ meeting that he wasn’t “even gonna get into that,” when asked whether he wants Biden to remain the nominee.

“The fact is, the president has said he is running,” Wyden said. “So, that’s the lay of the land today.”

Swing state senators

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who faces a challenging reelection bid this November, said he didn’t want to characterize what other senators said about Biden during the meeting.

Casey said it’s up to political pundits and analysts to determine how Biden remaining the presidential nominee might affect the Pennsylvania race as well as others.

“I’ve got to continue to do my work in the Senate and also to be a candidate, so I can’t sit around being an analyst,” Casey said.

When back home in the Keystone State, he said, voters tend to talk to him more about issues they’re concerned about, including reproductive rights and the cost of living.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly declined to comment on Democrats’ meeting and referred to his prior statements about Biden.

Kelly on Monday evening told reporters that the differences between Biden and Trump “could not be clearer.”

Biden, he said, has “delivered to the American people over and over again,” on climate change, prescription drug prices, infrastructure, and semiconductor manufacturing.

“On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, a convicted felon and now a criminal who has no business running for president,” Kelly said.

“Joe Biden is our nominee. Millions of people voted for Joe Biden to be on the ballot,” Kelly said. “He’s on the ballot, and I truly believe he’s gonna win in November.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said when asked about Biden during a press conference that “as I’ve said before, I’m with Joe.”

Schumer declined to answer questions about Democrats potentially nominating a different presidential candidate and about Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray’s statement Monday night critical of Biden.

“As I’ve said before, I’m with Joe,” Schumer reiterated.

Murray’s statement said Biden “must seriously consider the best way to preserve his incredible legacy and secure it for the future.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, deferred a question about Biden’s debate performance to Democratic leadership.

Maryland, New Mexico senators comment

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen said he had to leave the lunch early for a previously scheduled meeting with the Dutch prime minister, but said he doesn’t have concerns Biden will make the right choice on whether to stay in the race.

“Look, as I’ve said, I trust the president’s judgment, he understands the stakes in this election and he’s in the best position to make this decision,” Van Hollen said.

New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján said Democrats discussed several issues during the closed-door meeting, but declined to talk about what was said, though he reiterated his support for Biden’s candidacy.

“I look forward to voting for President Joe Biden to be president of the United States,” Luján said.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff said the meeting was “a constructive caucus discussion,” and that he supports Biden’s reelection campaign.

Delaware Sen. Tom Carper said he spoke during the meeting, but declined to specify what his comments were.

Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper said the lunch went “fine,” but declined to opine on where the party was moving on Biden’s nomination nor his own beliefs about the president’s ongoing candidacy.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed declined to answer any questions after the lunch.

House Republicans: ‘Democrats had misled us’

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana on Tuesday accused the Democratic Party of covering up Biden’s “glaring problem.”

“The Democrats had misled us. They need to be held accountable for that,” he said, during the House GOP’s regularly scheduled press conference.

Johnson also said the 25th Amendment “is appropriate” in this situation. If Biden’s Cabinet declares he is unfit for office, Vice President Kamala Harris would take over presidential duties.

“The notion that the 25th Amendment would be appropriate here is something that most Republicans and frankly, most Americans would agree with,” he said.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Elise Stefanik of New York, chair of the House Republican Conference, echoed Johnson’s concerns.

Stefanik called Biden “unfit to be our commander in chief” and accused the Democratic Party of concealing Biden’s mental acuity. “The cover-up is over and accountability is here.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/09/united-by-their-objections-to-trump-congressional-dems-largely-close-ranks-behind-biden/feed/ 0
Trump NY sentencing delayed after U.S. Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/02/trump-questions-ny-guilty-verdicts-after-u-s-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-ruling/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/02/trump-questions-ny-guilty-verdicts-after-u-s-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-ruling/#respond Tue, 02 Jul 2024 19:19:26 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20858

Former U.S. President Donald Trump walks to speak to the media after being found guilty following his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024, in New York City. Trump’s attorney has asked the court to set aside the guilty verdicts, the first for a former U.S. president, after a Monday U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted broad presidential immunity (Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — A New York judge agreed Tuesday to delay the criminal sentencing of former President Donald Trump in the state hush money case after Trump claimed the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision absolves him.

New York Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw the case, ordered the delay until Sept. 18 so the court could hear arguments on how the Supreme Court’s immunity decision on Monday impacts Trump’s state-level convictions, according to court filings.

Trump claims his 34 New York felony guilty verdicts violate Monday’s high court ruling and should be thrown out, according to a letter to Merchan from Trump attorney Todd Blanche.

“The verdicts in this case violate the presidential immunity doctrine and create grave risks of ‘an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself,’” Blanche wrote, adding that after further review, “it will be manifest that the trial result cannot stand.”

A Manhattan jury on May 30 found the former president guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to a porn star in the weeks prior to the 2016 presidential election.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed in a letter to Merchan to a two-week delay in Trump’s sentencing, according to the court filings.

Trump’s team has until July 10 to file its argument. Bragg agreed to a July 24 deadline for his reply.

“Although we believe (the) defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Bragg wrote Tuesday.

Merchan scheduled the sentencing for July 11, just days before Trump is scheduled to be officially nominated as his party’s 2024 presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. The new date pushes the sentencing less than two months before Election Day.

Presidential immunity opinion

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that former U.S. presidents enjoy absolute criminal immunity for “core Constitutional” powers and are “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” but are not immune from criminal prosecution for “unofficial acts.”

Trump escalated the question of presidential immunity to the Supreme Court after two lower courts denied his requests for immunity from federal criminal charges alleging he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results during his last months in the Oval Office.

The justices’ majority opinion ordered the 2020 election interference case back to the lower district court to decide whether Trump’s actions were official or unofficial acts. Those actions include Trump’s conversations with state officials about overturning election results and his social media posts claiming election fraud.

NY verdict 

Blanche asked Merchan to “set aside” Trump’s guilty verdict based on Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, according to the July 1 letter.

Blanche claimed that evidence presented by the prosecution against Trump during the New York case were likely “official acts.”

The New York state case centered on actions Trump took during his first year in office, including an Oval Office meeting to discuss financial transactions with his former personal attorney and checks that he personally signed.

“Under (Trump v. U.S.), this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” Blanche wrote.

“Moreover, as we argued previously, (Trump v. U.S.) forbids the ‘[u]se of evidence about such [official] conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.’ This includes President Trump’s ‘Tweets’ and ‘public address[es],’” Blanche wrote, quoting directly from the Supreme Court opinion.

New York prosecutors presented mounds of evidence, including business records and witness testimony, during the seven-week trial illustrating that Trump repaid his former lawyer Michael Cohen for giving $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. Trump later recorded the payments as “legal expenses” and increased the amount to Cohen to account for taxes and a bonus.

Testimony also revealed an Oval Office meeting Trump held with Cohen to discuss the repayment scheme, and evidence included nine checks bearing Trump’s personal signature.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/02/trump-questions-ny-guilty-verdicts-after-u-s-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-ruling/feed/ 0
Presidential immunity extends to some official acts, Supreme Court rules in Trump case https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/01/presidential-immunity-extends-to-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-in-trump-case/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/01/presidential-immunity-extends-to-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-in-trump-case/#respond Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:28:09 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20828

Former U.S President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he leaves court for the day at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 18, 2024 in New York City (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, sending former President Donald Trump’s case back to the lower courts.

The justices left open the question of how far official acts can reach, possibly reshaping the contours of the American presidency.

Trump escalated his immunity claim to the nation’s highest bench after two lower courts denied his request for protection from federal criminal charges alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

The decision about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s actions while in office likely closes the door to any chance that Trump’s election subversion case could go to trial before Election Day.

The justices took up the case in February but did not hear oral arguments until April 25.

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on obstruction law helps cases of Jan. 6 defendants

The trial court must now grapple with whether Trump’s alleged conduct to spread false information about the 2020 election results and conspiring to overturn them qualified as official presidential action.

In a 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court held that Trump’s conversations with Department of Justice officials regarding the election results were official but left unanswered questions about other conduct named in Department of Justice special counsel Jack’s Smith indictment of Trump.

“​​Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the opinion reads. “Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the decision makes the president “immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law.”

“If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop,” Sotomayor wrote. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Trump claimed in court filings that he could not be prosecuted for actions he took while still in office. His legal team also argues that former presidents cannot be tried in the court of law unless they are first impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.

The indictment, which a federal grand jury handed up in August 2023, alleges Trump knowingly spread falsehoods to his supporters, plotting with co-conspirators to overturn results in seven states and eventually working his base into a frenzy that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was to certify electoral votes.

DOJ’s Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/07/01/presidential-immunity-extends-to-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-in-trump-case/feed/ 0
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on obstruction law helps cases of Jan. 6 defendants https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/28/u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-obstruction-law-helps-cases-of-jan-6-defendants/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/28/u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-obstruction-law-helps-cases-of-jan-6-defendants/#respond Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:09:26 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20816

Thousands of former President Donald Trump’s supporters storm the U.S. Capitol building following a “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — A former Pennsylvania police officer who joined the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results cannot be charged with obstructing an official proceeding unless a lower court finds otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling throws into question the cases of potentially hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who faced the same charge, as well as a portion of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment alleging former President Donald Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In a 6-3 opinion, the justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote that the subsection in question of an early 2000s obstruction law can only be applied to tampering with physical records.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote.

“The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

Impact on Jan. 6 defendants, Trump

The ruling has the potential to affect more than 355 Jan. 6 defendants who were charged with the same felony statute, which carries a fine and not more than 20 years in prison.

Dozensincluding leaders of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have already been sentenced on the charge, according to the Department of Justice.

The case, Fischer v. United Statescentered on whether Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer broke the obstruction law when he joined the mob that breached the U.S. Capitol and delayed Congress, and Vice President Mike Pence, from certifying the 2020 presidential election results that declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner.

Trump also faces the obstruction charge as part of his four-count federal indictment that alleges he worked with others to overturn the election results in seven states, pressured Pence to join him and whipped his base into a frenzy that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack.

Trump will almost certainly challenge the charge, as his legal team has already argued he is completely immune to it.

The obstruction provision examined by the high court is contained in section 1512 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted after the 2001 Enron accounting scandal.

The provision targets “whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

Physical evidence

Significant time during April’s oral arguments centered on whether the second portion of the statute hinged on the first clause, meaning the law could only be applied if physical evidence was involved.

The government argued the two parts are separate and that Fischer, who sent texts leading up to the riot and is shown on police camera footage inside the Capitol, intended to disrupt an official proceeding of Congress.

Fischer’s team argued that he didn’t actually enter the Capitol until Congress had already paused the proceeding, and that he didn’t stay very long.

lower federal court agreed last year with Fischer’s motion to dismiss the felony charge.

A federal appeals panel in Washington, D.C., did not. Judge Florence Y. Pan — who also sat on the panel in Trump’s presidential immunity appeal — wrote in the lead opinion that the statute is “unambiguous” in its meaning of what constitutes obstructing an official proceeding.

The obstruction charge is not the only count brought against Fischer after his participation in the Jan. 6 riot.

The original indictment against him also included charges of civil disorder, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/28/u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-obstruction-law-helps-cases-of-jan-6-defendants/feed/ 0
Delayed Supreme Court ruling makes Trump trial on 2020 charges unlikely before election https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/26/delayed-supreme-court-ruling-makes-trump-trial-on-2020-charges-unlikely-before-election/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/26/delayed-supreme-court-ruling-makes-trump-trial-on-2020-charges-unlikely-before-election/#respond Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:07:00 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20781

Dave McCormick, Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, speaks alongside the Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, at a campaign rally at the Liacouras Center on Friday in Philadelphia (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether presidents enjoy total criminal immunity, delaying one of the most consequential legal decisions in U.S. history and likely closing the door on former President Donald Trump facing his federal election interference trial before November.

Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee who is entangled in several criminal cases, already faces a July sentencing for a New York state conviction on 34 felonies for falsifying business records ahead of the 2016 election.

Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in the immunity case on the last day of their term, April 25, and have held the case in their hands since late February.

Opinions are scheduled to be released on Thursday and Friday, but the court does not disclose which ones in advance. Trump is set to debate President Joe Biden on Thursday night at CNN studios in Atlanta, with the campaign for the presidency in full swing.

The question before the court is whether U.S. presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any official acts taken while in the Oval Office.

Trump pressed the matter to the Supreme Court after a lower court in January denied his claim that he should not face federal charges that allege he schemed to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss by knowingly spreading falsehoods, conspiring to create false slates of electors in several states and egging on supporters who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. 2021.

U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court in December to leapfrog the appellate court level and expedite a ruling on presidential immunity. At the time, Trump’s trial for the election subversion charges had still been set for March 4. The justices declined Smith’s request.

‘De facto’ immunity

Critics of the Supreme Court accuse the bench’s conservative justices, including three Trump appointees, of purposely delaying the ruling to keep Trump out of the courtroom before November’s election.

“By preventing (a) trial before the election, they have de facto provided him with immunity, regardless of what the substance of the decision may eventually hand down,” Michael Podhorzer, president of the Defending Democracy Project, told States Newsroom Wednesday.

The anti-Trump advocacy organization has been closely monitoring the former president’s legal cases.

Podhorzer blamed the justices for not taking up the case in December.

“Then they waited as long as they possibly could to now rule on it, and they created this crisis. They are basically putting their thumb on the scale in this election,” he said.

Defining ‘official acts’

The justices appeared skeptical in April as Trump attorney D. John Sauer argued a broad definition for what constitutes a president’s “official acts.”

Under his view nearly everything done during a presidential term would count as an official act, including Trump’s efforts to interfere with Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

In jaw-dropping moments throughout Trump’s appeal, Sauer argued before Supreme Court justices and a lower appellate panel that presidents could order the assassination of a political rival without facing legal accountability — that is, if he or she is not first impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.

Trump and supporters of the presidential immunity argument contend that allowing criminal prosecution of former presidents will open a “Pandora’s box” of political targeting by opponents.

They also accuse Smith of political interference for bringing charges against Trump as he eyed a second term. Smith announced the four-count indictment in early August 2023.

Meanwhile opponents of such immunity, including several who served in previous Republican administrations, warn of “terrifying possibilities” should a president be free from the threat of criminal liability.

Several conservative justices hinted that the case should be returned to the lower courts, where a clear line between official acts and private conduct can be drawn.

That could eat up additional weeks or months, further diminishing any slight possibility that Trump’s election interference trial would happen prior to the November election.

Podhorzer said a further delay sets up a “showdown between the ordinary function of the criminal justice system, which would have Trump go on trial, (and) the normal operation of our presidential elections in which there would be no encumbrance on Trump’s ability to campaign.”

All proceedings at the lower court level have been put on hold until the Supreme Court issues its decision.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/26/delayed-supreme-court-ruling-makes-trump-trial-on-2020-charges-unlikely-before-election/feed/ 0
Biden to pardon vets discharged for same-sex relationships https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-to-pardon-vets-discharged-for-same-sex-relationships/ https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-to-pardon-vets-discharged-for-same-sex-relationships/#respond Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:30:37 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20776

Sailors decorate the mess decks in observance of Pride month aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Jason Dunham in the Atlantic Ocean on June 16, 2022 (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Theoplis Stewart II).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden will pardon U.S. military veterans who were discharged or convicted under military law for consensual same-sex relations, the administration announced Wednesday.

The White House could not provide an exact number of veterans who will be pardoned, but the administration estimates thousands were convicted over several decades and may be eligible.

The convictions were enforced under a military law that prohibited certain types of sex from May 1951 to December 2013.

When asked why Biden chose now to pardon the veterans, senior administration officials told reporters on a call Tuesday that Biden is “committed to doing everything he can to ensure that the culture of the armed forces reflect the values that make us an exceptional nation and to maintaining the finest fighting force in the world.”

The officials continued that Biden is “taking this historic step to ensure that we live up to our sacred obligation to care for all service members, veterans and their families.”

Biden said in a statement Wednesday that he is “righting an historic wrong by using my clemency authority to pardon many former service members who were convicted simply for being themselves.”

“Our Nation’s service members stand on the frontlines of freedom, and risk their lives in order to defend our country,” Biden said in the written statement.

“Despite their courage and great sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQI+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some of these patriotic Americans were subject to court-martial, and have carried the burden of this great injustice for decades.”

Administration officials said guidance will be posted on the Department of Defense website for veterans to apply for proof they are eligible for pardon under the proclamation.

Veterans can then use the certificate of proof to apply to their respective military branch for a discharge upgrade.

Military law and consensual sex

Biden’s Wednesday proclamation effectuates the pardons for any veterans, alive or deceased, who were discharged or convicted in military court under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for consensual sexual relationships.

While the law prohibited forceful sex acts with minors and animals, Article 125 also banned “unnatural carnal copulation” — defined as oral or anal sex — with another person of the same or opposite sex.

The military code was updated in 2013 to reflect that only forceful, not consensual, sexual acts could be penalized.

Administration officials acknowledged that Article 125 is not the only military law that targeted LGBTQ+ service members.

Senior administration officials told reporters that while the proclamation is narrowly focused on convictions under Article 125, the Department of Justice has been instructed to flag any other clemency applications for veterans penalized for sexual orientation or gender identity under other military statutes.

The U.S. military has a decades-long history of anti-LGBTQ+ policies. The armed forces outright banned gay and lesbian service members during World War II.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton set a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, essentially allowing LGBTQ+ members to serve in the military, so long as they didn’t make their sexual orientation public.

The policy was repealed under President Barack Obama.

Days after his inauguration, Biden issued an executive order overturning a ban on transgender service members.

Pardon power

The Constitution empowers the president with several ways to forgive crimes against the United States. The president can fully pardon, or lift, punishments without qualification for individuals or groups of people; commute, or reduce, an offender’s sentence; or issue a reprieve, basically delaying an offender’s sentence.

Clemency applications are processed through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Biden issued sweeping pardons in October 2022 and December 2023 for marijuana offenses.

The Justice Department posts clemency statistics for each presidential administration dating back to William McKinley at justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-to-pardon-vets-discharged-for-same-sex-relationships/feed/ 0
Calm, conservative, confident: What GOP senators want in Trump’s vice presidential pick https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/25/calm-conservative-confident-what-gop-senators-want-in-trumps-vice-presidential-pick/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/25/calm-conservative-confident-what-gop-senators-want-in-trumps-vice-presidential-pick/#respond Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:47:52 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20765

Former President Donald Trump shakes hands with Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, on June 13, 2024 in Washington, D.C., as Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, left, seen as a possible vice presidential pick, and other Republicans look on. Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, was visiting Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans and participate in additional meetings (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Republican members of the U.S. Senate striving for a takeover of their chamber in the November elections have a wish list for what they’d like to see in Donald Trump’s running mate.

A “little calmer” than Trump. Confident. Conservative. Military experience. Good relationships with senators. Ready to take over as chief executive if needed, they told States Newsroom in interviews.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has held off on revealing his pick. But he’s dropped tantalizing compliments about a few of the short-list candidates, producing non-stop headlines about the veepstakes in advance of the Republican National Convention next month.

So far, Trump hasn’t indicated a clear favorite, leading to incessant speculation about what characteristics he’s looking for in his second-in-command this time around, the person who will head up the GOP ticket with him in what’s likely to be a close election.

In 2016, Trump selected Indiana’s Mike Pence, in part to sway evangelical Christians who were skeptical about Trump’s moral character.

Trump is seeking a second term in office as a convicted felon found guilty on 34 counts in New York for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to an adult film star ahead of the 2016 election. He’s also facing federal charges for seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has cast aside Pence after his former vice president refused to take part in the scheme.

That, however, hasn’t diminished the number of GOP lawmakers and former presidential hopefuls jostling to join his ticket.

Trump’s list of vice presidential candidates reportedly includes North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Arkansas U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, Florida U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, former South Carolina Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik and Ohio U.S. Sen. JD Vance.

Republican senators, including some thought to be in the running to be tapped as the veep candidate, met with Trump on June 13 to map campaign strategy and portray unity.

Trump told NBC News on Saturday his pick “most likely” will be at Thursday night’s debate with President Joe Biden in Atlanta.

Confidence and a coalition

Several Republican senators interviewed by States Newsroom offered suggestions for what traits might be most helpful for Trump in a vice president during a potential second term.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she’s hoping to see a vice presidential pick who can bring confidence and a wider GOP coalition to the table.

“I think you want somebody who has broad knowledge, not just national, but international, (you want) decisiveness, and somebody who’s got leadership that you could actually see taking the reins of the presidency, somebody who has conservative principles on the Republican side and is a proven leader,” Capito said.

“I would imagine for President Trump, it’s going to be somebody that brings a broader constituency to him,” Capito said, adding “and is probably a little calmer than he is.”

‘Good relationships across the spectrum’

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Trump would “benefit from somebody who, in the right setting, is providing a lot of good upward feedback, supporting the president’s agenda.”

The former and possibly future president would also gain from a pick who is “well studied on the issues,” and if it’s a senator, “a person with good relationships across the spectrum would help,” Tillis said.

“We’re probably going to have a tight margin, so if you think about maybe somebody who has past relationships with people in the House, good relationships with the Republican conference. I mean, we’re gonna have some tough votes,” Tillis said.

For example, Congress faces a massive tax code fight next year as several provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law are set to expire. Tillis recalled the internal GOP debate in 2017 “wasn’t a cakewalk.”

“We had to work to get Republican support,” Tillis said. “So having somebody that naturally has that chemistry, you know, whether or not you’ve worked on legislation, or you just have a good relationship going in. If I were in President Trump’s position, that’d be a key factor.”

Congress will also need to address the debt limit next year, a debate that carries significant economic consequences, both domestically and around the globe.

A stint in the military

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst — a top member of the Armed Services Committee and a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard — said she “would love to see somebody that does have foreign relations or military policy experience.”

“I think that would be key, to have someone that’s young and enthusiastic and would be able to fill the role of our next president as well,” Ernst said.

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said that Trump might want to pick someone whom voters feel confident can follow him as the leader of the Republican Party.

“I’m not sure that vice presidential nominees have a lot of impact, influence on how people vote,” Moran said. “But I would say that this may be a year in which that matters — (given the) age of candidates. And so who might follow is probably of interest to people. And I would say that the best qualification is somebody who’d be a great president.”

Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, who is likely to become his home state’s next governor, said Trump needs someone who thinks like him politically, so the two don’t differ on policy issues, as well as someone ready to become president if required.

“I think someone’s going to have to be on the same wavelength politically, for sure,” Braun said. “I think I’ve heard him say that he wants somebody ready to step into the role if necessary. I think the loyalty factor is something he’s always stressed.”

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt said that no matter who Trump picks off his short list, Republicans will win back the Oval Office in November.

“Every senator on the list is outstanding,” Britt said. “And I’ll be excited about the good things that we’re going to be able to do with him back in office and us in control of the Senate.”

When asked his opinion of Trump’s VP short list, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said, “I haven’t seen anybody on the list that I would object to.”

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said he wouldn’t comment on specific contenders, but added “all the names I’ve heard mentioned seem to be good people.”

“But what counts is what President Trump thinks, and I don’t have the slightest idea who he’s gonna pick,” Kennedy said.

A sitting senator

Republican senators who spoke to States Newsroom appeared mostly unfazed by the possibility that a vice presidential pick could be from among their ranks — even if that lowers what could be a very narrow majority in the Senate come January.

Capito said she thinks a Republican majority will likely remain safe even if Trump chooses one of her colleagues as his running mate.

“I think the ones he’s talking about are from pretty red states, but you know, you’re always concerned about that,” Capito said. “But I think it would be great to have a colleague who was in the Senate with me be our vice president.”

Braun said that Trump might want to consider the polling of several key races for the Senate before picking his nominee.

“I think that could be a consideration,” Braun said. “You take that risk off the table.”

When asked whether a VP pick from the Senate could weaken or upset a GOP majority, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said, “I’m sure Trump will take that into consideration.”

Tillis said he is not concerned about Trump’s VP pick threatening a Republican Senate majority, and he speculated that Trump may even pull from the upper chamber when choosing his Cabinet, should he be elected.

“I think the replacement protocol doesn’t make it a significant issue,” Tillis said.

Grassley echoed Tillis. “Are we talking about Ohio, Florida, South Carolina? That’s it. I don’t think you’d worry about that,” he said.

Forty-five states require the governor to appoint someone to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat, and 37 of those states fill the vacancy with the chosen appointment until the next statewide election, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The remaining states — Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin — require vacant Senate seats to be filled by a special election.

All of Trump’s picks from the Senate are from states with Republican governors.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/25/calm-conservative-confident-what-gop-senators-want-in-trumps-vice-presidential-pick/feed/ 0
Trump claims ‘great unity’ after talks with congressional GOP  https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/14/trump-claims-great-unity-after-talks-with-congressional-gop/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/14/trump-claims-great-unity-after-talks-with-congressional-gop/#respond Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:10:13 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20646

Former President Donald Trump is applauded by U.S. Senate Republicans before giving remarks Thursday to the press at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters. Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, visited Capitol Hill to meet with House and Senate Republicans. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In his first visit to Capitol Hill since leaving office in January 2021, former President Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, mapped campaign strategy with GOP lawmakers and projected party unity ahead of the November elections.

Trump said the meetings brought “great unity.”

Surrounded by Republican senators who were smiling and applauding him after a meeting at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters near the Capitol, Trump said “we have one thing in mind and that’s making our country great.”

The positive reception from GOP leaders showed Trump’s standing in the party improved since the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that saw a mob of Trump supporters attack the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block Congress from certifying the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election.

The U.S. House impeached Trump – for the second time – for his role in the attack, though the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict him.

Trump’s visit Thursday came two weeks after he was convicted on 34 felony counts in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star before the 2016 election. Republicans have denounced the verdict as a weaponization of the justice system.

Trump met with House and Senate Republicans separately. Lawmakers exiting their respective meetings said they were unified behind the former president and they discussed a legislative strategy for a potential second term, such as reinstating Trump-era immigration policies.

“He understands he needs a majority in both bodies to have a successful presidency and he is determined to do that,” Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma said.

Trump has made immigration a core campaign issue – as he did in 2016 – and has promised to not only reinstate his policies at the southern border, but to carry out mass deportations. 

Democrats have remained on the offense on immigration policy, with the White House enacting an executive order that limits asylum claims at the southern border and the Senate failing on a second attempt to pass a border security bill. Vulnerable U.S. Senate Democrats in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania are aiming for reelection.

Trump urges ‘careful’ abortion talk

The meetings occurred on the day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on another hot-button issue for the GOP. In a much-anticipated decision, the court unanimously upheld access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, under current prescribing guidelines.

House GOP lawmakers leaving the early meeting said that Trump did not comment on the court’s ruling.

But New York Rep. Marc Molinaro said that the former president advised Republicans that they “have to be very careful about” how they talk about abortion and that “is to show respect for women and the choices that they have to make.”

Just days ago, Trump promised to work “side by side” with a religious organization that wants abortion “eradicated.” Trump has yet to release his policy stances on contraception and access to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen approved for up to 10 weeks gestation.

Access to reproductive health care, including contraception and IVF, has become a central campaign theme for Democrats.

The Senate tried to pass legislation last week that would have provided protections for access to contraception, but most Republicans voted against it. The Senate also took a procedural vote Thursday on legislation from Democrats that would bolster protections for IVF, but it failed in the face of Republican opposition.

Birthday, baseball and an ‘aggressive agenda’

GOP House members leaving their meeting reported singing “Happy Birthday” to Trump, whose 78th birthday is Friday.

Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee said the conference presented Trump with a baseball and bat from the previous night’s Congressional Baseball Game, a charity event which Republicans won 31-11.

Burchett said they wanted to give him the memorabilia because “he’s the leader of our party, and the Republicans destroyed the Democrats, as we should do on Election Day.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters after the meeting that Trump “brought an extraordinary amount of energy and excitement and enthusiasm this morning.”

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, of New York, said Trump was “warmly welcomed” and that GOP lawmakers had a “very successful” meeting with him.

“We are 100% unified behind his candidacy,” said Stefanik, a contender on Trump’s short list for vice presidential picks.

Johnson told reporters that Republicans have “an extraordinary stable of candidates” and that the party is “headed for a great November.”

Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida made similar remarks, and said that she believes “momentum is on our side.”

“We’re very, very motivated, our base is motivated and everyday Americans are motivated,” Cammack said.

She added that the former president is working to grow the Republican Party.

“It’s pretty clear that November for us is gonna be incredible,” she said.

Stakes in November

Johnson said that he’s confident Trump will win the White House and that Republicans will flip the Senate and grow their majority in the House.

Control of each chamber of Congress is expected to be closely fought in the November elections, and it’s possible that the House and Senate will continue to be split between the parties, but political observers see the prospect of a big switch.

If current trends continue through the year, it’s possible that the Senate could swing from Democratic to Republican control, and the House could flip from the GOP to Democrats.

House Democrats only need a gain of five seats to regain power and Senate Republicans only need two, or one if Trump wins the presidential race. Republicans have an easy opportunity to pick up a Senate seat in West Virginia after Joe Manchin III, a centrist Democrat, decided not seek reelection.

“We will be working on a very aggressive agenda to fix all the great problems facing this country right now,” Johnson said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that Trump is focused on increasing the GOP majority in the House. Because of the razor-thin majority that Republicans hold in the chamber, Johnson has often had to rely on Democrats to pass government funding bills along with foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Insult to convention city

Republicans are gearing up for the party’s national convention in Milwaukee in mid-July, where they will officially nominate Trump as their 2024 presidential nominee and a yet-to-be-named vice presidential pick as well.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in New York four days before the convention begins.

The former president did not mention a running mate during his meeting with GOP senators, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said.

Trump told lawmakers Thursday that Milwaukee is a “horrible” city, according to Punchbowl News. 

Wisconsin Republicans had varying interpretations of the remark, with Rep. Derrick Van Orden saying Trump was talking about crime in the city and Rep. Bryan Steil denying that Trump even made the comment.

Trump is scheduled to visit southeastern Wisconsin next week, for a campaign rally in Racine on Tuesday.

Key to Senate majority 

Following the meeting Trump had with senators, Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville offered a handful of words to characterize the meeting: “Unification. Leadership.”

But not all Senate Republicans were in attendance. Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins did not attend due to scheduling conflicts, according to the Washington Examiner.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said that despite those absences, Republicans are still unified in their support of Trump.

Even those senators who have been at odds with the former president, such as Utah’s Mitt Romney and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, attended, which South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham felt was beneficial.

“We realize that his success is our success,” Graham said of Trump. “The road to the Senate majority is also the road to the White House.”

Dismissing guilty verdict

Johnson of Louisiana said Trump’s guilty verdict in New York has “backfired fantastically,” as the party boasted of a fundraising bump after “the terrible, bogus trial in Manhattan.”

Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall made a similar argument that the verdict benefited Trump.

“It’s helping him,” he said, noting that after the May 30 verdict, the Trump campaign raised $141 million in May.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said “there was an absolute meeting of minds” that the verdict was a “sham.”

“We are so sorry that he has to endure that,” Lummis told States Newsroom on her walk from the meeting back to the Capitol.

Trump is also charged in three other criminal cases, including federal charges that allege he knowingly spread false information after the 2020 presidential election, pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to join the scheme to overturn the results and whipping his base into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Supreme Court is set to decide in the coming weeks whether Trump enjoys presidential immunity, as he claims, from those charges.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, who was the ranking member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, criticized Republican lawmakers for meeting with Trump.

She reposted a New York Times photograph of McConnell shaking Trump’s hand Thursday on X and wrote “Mitch McConnell knows Trump provoked the violent attack on our Capitol and then ‘watched television happily’ as his mob brutally beat police officers and hunted the Vice President.”

“Trump and his collaborators will be defeated, and history will remember the shame of people like @LeaderMcConnell who enabled them,” Cheney, a Wyoming Republican who lost her reelection bid in a 2022 Republican primary, wrote.

Dems blast return

The Biden campaign has also latched onto Trump’s return to Capitol Hill, releasing statements from various Democrats who led investigations into the insurrection and criticized the former president’s return.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement on behalf of the Biden campaign that “the instigator of an insurrection is returning to the scene of the crime.”

“With his pledges to be a dictator on day one and seek revenge against his political opponents, Donald Trump comes to Capitol Hill today with the same mission of dismantling our democracy,” she said.

Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, former chair of the House Jan. 6 committee, criticized Republicans for allowing Trump “to waltz in here when it’s known he has no regard for democracy.”

“He still presents the same dire threat to our democracy that he did three years ago — and he’d be wise to head back to Mar-a-Lago and await his sentencing,” Thompson, of Mississippi, said in a statement on behalf of the Biden campaign.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who served as an impeachment manager for Trump’s role in the insurrection, said in a statement on behalf of the Biden campaign that “Donald Trump is a one-man crime wave and a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and the American people.”

Lia Chien contributed to this report. 

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/14/trump-claims-great-unity-after-talks-with-congressional-gop/feed/ 0
U.S. House GOP votes to hold attorney general in contempt in dispute over audio recording https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-house-gop-votes-to-hold-attorney-general-in-contempt-in-dispute-over-audio-recording/ Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:47:36 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=20613

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department to announce the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the discovery of classified documents held by President Joe Biden at an office and his home on Jan. 12, 2023 in Washington, D.C.(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for his refusal to release audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interviews with Department of Justice officials.

The GOP lawmakers maintain the audio is valuable for their monthslong impeachment inquiry into Biden.

House Republicans brought the contempt citation against Garland after he agreed with Biden’s assertion of executive privilege over the recordings of his interviews during special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into his handling of classified material. Hur ultimately did not recommend criminal charges against Biden.

The House voted 216-207 to pass the resolution. Rep. Dave Joyce of Ohio was the only Republican to vote no.

“Congress cannot serve as a necessary check on the presidency if the executive branch is free to defy duly authorized, legal subpoenas,” Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said in a statement following the vote. “House Republicans rightfully held Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable today for his failure to comply with lawful subpoenas issued by the Oversight and Judiciary Committees.”

Garland released a statement denouncing the vote as “deeply disappointing” and accusing House Republicans of turning “a serious Congressional authority into a partisan weapon.”

“Today’s vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers, the Justice Department’s need to protect its investigations, and the substantial amount of information we have provided to the committees,” Garland said in the statement.

The Justice Department provided a transcript of Hur’s interviews with Biden to both committees.

But GOP committee leaders subpoenaed the audio because they maintain transcripts are “not sufficient.”

“We’re in the midst of an impeachment inquiry, we’re entitled to the best evidence, and that’s why we want the tapes,” Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said on the floor Wednesday morning during debate of the contempt resolution.

Jordan accused the White House of a “history of changing transcripts,” seeming to refer to a late April report by the right-wing publication the Daily Caller that highlighted transcript corrections issued by White House communications staff. The White House routinely publishes transcripts of speeches and comments by Biden.

“The audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke,” Jordan continued on the floor.

News organizations are also in pursuit of the audio. Several, including CNN and NBC, have sued for the recordings under the Freedom of Information Act.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, criticized Republicans on the floor Wednesday for seeking to hold Garland in contempt over an ongoing impeachment inquiry that he described as a “madcap wild goose chase.”

House GOP lawmakers already have access to a “verbatim” transcript, the Maryland Democrat said.

“Do they think that the holy grail of the 118th Congress – evidence of a presidential high crime and misdemeanor – is lurking in the pauses or the background throat clearings and sneezes on the audio tape?” Raskin continued. “… They literally don’t even know what they’re looking for anymore.”

House lawmakers voted along party lines in December to proceed with an impeachment inquiry into whether Biden, during his time as vice president, benefited from his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings.

Trump, Biden and classified documents

In response to Raskin’s accusation, Jordan said on the floor Wednesday that Republicans know what they’re after: “We’re looking for equal treatment under the law,” he said.

“The committees need the audio recordings to determine whether the Justice Department appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting the president,” Jordan said.

“They told us ‘we’re going to operate independently of the White House’ … OK, maybe so, but what we do know is this: One former president is being charged. Joe Biden’s not being (charged),” Jordan continued on the floor.

Trump faces federal criminal charges in Florida related to his storage of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach estate, after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden. The case has been postponed indefinitely by trial Judge Aileen Cannon.

In early February, Hur declined to bring criminal charges against Biden for his handling of the classified information. Hur described Biden in his report as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory,” a comment Biden vehemently rebuked.

Hur interviewed Biden in October 2023 as part of his inquiry into classified documents dating back to Biden’s time as vice president. The documents were found at the president’s office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., and later at his private Wilmington home, respectively in November 2022 and January 2023.

Recent criminal contempt trend

Criminal contempt is a tool Congress can use as leverage to obtain compliance with subpoenas. The citation carries a penalty of a fine up to $100,000 or imprisonment of at least one month but no longer than 12 months if the Department of Justice pursues charges.

While the tool is historically rarely used in Congress, it’s becoming more common. Since 2019, the House has approved six such citations. So far, the Justice Department has declined to pursue charges against executive branch officials held in contempt. The statute of limitations is five years.

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on whether it would pursue charges against Garland, an unlikely scenario.

Garland is not the first U.S. attorney general to be held in contempt.

The Democratic-led House held former President Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress in 2019 after he refused to turn over documents related to the 2020 Census and his order to a Department of Justice employee to ignore a deposition subpoena.

The Department of Justice did not pursue charges against Barr, who was held in contempt alongside then-Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who served in the Obama administration, was held in contempt of Congress in June 2012 for refusing to provide documents related to Operation Fast and Furious, an investigation into gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Department of Justice declined to prosecute Holder. Holder was the first-ever sitting U.S. Cabinet member to be held in criminal contempt of Congress.

Congress also held Holder in civil contempt over the botched operation, leading to a yearslong lawsuit that ended in a settlement in 2019.

]]>
Pair of U.S. House Dems add to chorus calling for Alito, Thomas recusals https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/pair-of-u-s-house-dems-add-to-chorus-calling-for-alito-thomas-recusals/ Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:01:33 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=20590

The U.S. Supreme Court pictured on September 28, 2020. Congressional Democrats have called for ethics reforms for the court in the wake of recent controversies. (Al Drago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats echoed Senate colleagues Tuesday in calling for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from Jan. 6 cases, and for congressional Republicans to support passing an enforceable ethics code for the entire bench.

Reps. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and vice ranking member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brought together fellow progressive Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse with experts and advocates for a roundtable discussion on the “ethics crisis” facing the nation’s highest court.

Recent revelations of flags sympathetic to the “Stop the Steal” movement flown outside Alito’s home have reignited simmering concerns over justices’ conflicts of interest as they decide politically divisive issues. This year, justices are set to rule on access to the abortion pill and whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from criminal charges alleging 2020 election interference, among other cases.

Raskin and Ocasio-Cortez delivered searing remarks, admonishing decades of court actions beginning with the 5-4 decision in 2000’s Bush v. Gore that ultimately decided the presidential victory for George W. Bush. The lawmakers continued on to recent events that Ocasio-Cortez characterized as “corruption that is almost comical.”

“The Supreme Court as it stands today is delegitimizing itself through his conduct,” the New York Democrat continued in her opening statement. “Americans are losing fundamental rights in the process — reproductive health care, civil liberties, voting rights, the right to organize clean air and water because the court has been captured and corrupted by money and extremism.”

Raskin, of Maryland, said the “highest court in the land today has the lowest ethical standards.”

In his opening statement, Raskin characterized the court as “the judicial arm of the Republican Party,” drawing a throughline from Bush’s appointments to the bench of Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito to Trump’s appointments of conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“Now this right-wing corporate court, carefully designed to destroy Roe v. Wade and marry right-wing religion to untrammeled corporate power, has been demolishing women’s abortion rights and contraceptive rights, civil rights law, voting rights law, civil liberties, environmental law, workers’ rights and consumer rights, enshrining government power over people and corporate power over government,” Raskin said.

Raskin and Ocasio-Cortez’s roundtable came less than a week after progressive House Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Hank Johnson of Georgia rallied with activists outside the Supreme Court urging an ethics overhaul.

That same day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky posted to X: “As the Supreme Court term ends, the Left is once again bullying Justices who refuse to take orders from liberal Senators. The Court should take any action it deems appropriate to reprimand unethical conduct by members of its Bar. And Justices should continue to pay this harassment no mind.”

‘Keep the pressure on’

Whitehouse told Democratic members of the Oversight and Accountability Committee that Senate Democrats are shining a “heavy spotlight on the mischief.”

The Rhode Island Democrat has championed an ethics bill titled the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which advanced out of committee along party lines in July 2023 but has not received a floor vote.

“We need to keep the pressure on until they join the rest of the government in having a real ethics code with real fact finding and some prospects for comparing the facts that are found to the rules,” Whitehouse said.

The bill was introduced during the fallout from a 2023 ProPublica investigation revealing that Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts from and traveled with a major Republican donor.

A recent analysis by watchdog group Fix The Court illustrated that over the last 20 years the value of gifts received and likely received by Thomas dwarfs that of his colleagues.

Whitehouse again pressed the court in May after the New York Times published that an upside-down U.S. flag hung outside Alito’s Alexandria, Virginia, home just days after former Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol. The Times later revealed another flag carried by Jan. 6 insurrectionists flew outside the justice’s New Jersey beach house.

Along with Sen. Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Whitehouse requested a meeting with Roberts to urge Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack. Roberts declined, and Alito responded to the senators, declaring he would not recuse himself.

“Thank you Sen. Whitehouse for always flying the flag right side up,” Raskin said.

The court ‘will decide all of this for all of us’

Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania law professor, told the lawmakers that the court is “conducting itself in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with basic separation-of-powers principles that are a core feature of our democracy.”

“This is crystal clear right now, as it is every June, as the country waits with bated breath to learn whether and how the court will upend huge swaths of American law,” she continued.

“This year questions include whether and how the court could further erode the capacity of agencies to regulate in ways that protect our health and safety and well being,” and major firearms decisions, Shaw said.

The court will also decide whether laws on the books will “be used to hold accountable individuals charged with the attack on the Capitol, including the former president,” Shaw said. “And the court is asserting that it and essentially it alone will decide all of this for all of us.”

Over two dozen opinions are expected from the Supreme Court by the end of June.

Two decisions related to two Jan. 6 cases remain pending — one involving a former police officer who breached the Capitol and is seeking to have an obstruction charge dropped. The decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 defendant cases, and the 2020 election interference case against Trump, who faces the same obstruction charge.

The court is also set to decide whether Trump is immune from four federal criminal counts alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and knowingly spread false information that whipped his supporters into rioting on Jan. 6.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

]]>
Ann Wagner joins bipartisan U.S. House caucus planning for post-war Middle East https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/ann-wagner-joins-bipartisan-u-s-house-caucus-planning-for-post-war-middle-east/ Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:50:29 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=20585

A police officer walks near a police station that was destroyed after a battle between Israeli troops and Hamas militants on Oct. 8, 2023, in Sderot, Israel. A U.S. House caucus formed this month with the goal of planning for the region after the Israel-Hamas war ends. (Footage by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers has launched an effort to spur planning for what the Gaza Strip will look like the “day after” the Israel-Hamas war, even as agreement over a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal remains elusive.

Democratic Reps. Brad Schneider of Illinois and David Trone of Maryland, along with Republicans Ann Wagner of Missouri and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, formed the Gaza Working Group with the goal of involving Congress in discussions about the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations, according to a joint press release sent to reporters Tuesday.

The four leaders formed the Abraham Accords Caucus in 2022 following the 2020 agreement to normalize relations between Israel and the three Arab states of Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. The companion caucus in the U.S. Senate is led by Democratic Sens. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Cory Booker of New Jersey, alongside GOP Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Joni Ernst of Iowa.

“As leaders of the Abraham Accords Caucus, we have an obligation to envision and work towards a future in which Israel — and all of the Middle East — is free of the evil that is Hamas,” McMorris Rodgers said in a statement.

Trone called the working group a “promising start.”

“Moving forward, we must work together to ensure Hamas is no longer in power by establishing a free and fair democracy in Gaza, secure the safety of Israel and surrounding nations and provide hope and diplomacy for their people,” he said in a statement.

The group did not detail or endorse a specific plan for the Gaza Strip after the conflict, but rather aims to “convene meetings to engage” executive branch officials, diplomats and experts to “deliberate and ask questions regarding pertinent issues.”

The group’s first meeting was a “frank, off-the-record exchange” with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog, according to the joint release. The group met with Herzog on June 4, according to Schneider’s spokesperson.

Wagner said stabilizing the region is important to maintaining a “united front to counter Iran and its proxies.”

“It cannot be the United States’ job to rebuild Gaza, but together with Israel we can choose who sits at that table,” Wagner said in a statement.

Ceasefire talks 

The lawmakers’ announcement comes as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in the region for his eighth visit since the start of the conflict, this time to urge agreement on the latest cease-fire proposal outlined by President Joe Biden on May 31.

Blinken told reporters in Tel Aviv Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “reaffirmed” his commitment to the proposal.

“So everyone’s vote is in, except for one vote, and that’s Hamas. And that’s what we wait for,” Blinken said.

Fourteen nations on the 15-member United Nations Security Council, including the U.S., endorsed the proposal Monday. Russia abstained.

The Israel-Hamas war has been ongoing since Hamas militants infiltrated Israel’s southern border on Oct. 7, killing roughly 1,200, according to Israel’s figures.

The death toll from Israel’s continued offensive in the Palestinian territory of Gaza reached 36,379 at the end of May, according to the Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip run by the Hamas-controlled government.

]]>
Trump floats plan to end taxes on tips, though experts raise doubts https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/trump-floats-plan-to-end-taxes-on-tips-though-experts-raise-doubts/ Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:08:29 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=20575

A server delivers beverages at Dover Downs Casino on June 5, 2018 in Dover, Delaware. Former President Donald Trump said in a campaign rally in Las Vegas on June 9, 2024 he would seek to end taxes for tips if elected again in November. (Mark Makela/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Economists across the ideological spectrum raised doubts about the cost and workability of former President Donald Trump’s proposal over the weekend to exempt tips from federal taxes if he wins in November.

During a campaign rally Sunday in Las Vegas, where hundreds of thousands work in the hospitality industry, Trump promised service workers that they would no longer have to pay federal taxes on tipped income if the presumptive Republican nominee wins a second term.

The roughly 6 million tipped workers in the U.S., as of the latest data available from 2018, make up a small fraction of the country’s 150 million taxpayers, but campaigning on tax cuts for certain demographics is increasingly a top issue leading up to November’s presidential election.

“This is the first time I’ve said this, and for those who work at hotels and people that get tips, you’re gonna be very happy because when I get to office we are going to not charge taxes on tips, on people making tips,” Trump said to cheers at the rally.

Trump said he will “do that right away, first thing in office,” though changing the tax code would require an act of Congress.

Tax code due for update

Large portions of the sweeping 2017 tax law that Congress passed along party lines during the Trump administration are set to expire at the end of 2025, and lawmakers and advocates are already trotting out their priorities.

Tipped workers made an average $6,000 on top of their base wages in 2018, and together they paid about $38 billion in taxes on tips, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service figures. In 2018, the IRS collected about $7 trillion in overall taxes.

“In terms of the macroeconomic impact, it’s pretty small,” said Erica York, senior economist and research director at the right-leaning Tax Foundation.

“If you think of it in terms of what Congress is going to be debating next year, one of the big challenges that lawmakers are going to face is the revenue impact. Every dollar of tax revenue for one type of tax cut is $1 less for another type of tax cut. So it’s going to be a real exercise in prioritizing trade-offs across different policies,” York said.

Trump has vowed to extend all tax cuts enacted under his watch, but the cost of extending them over the next decade would reach $4.6 trillion, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Trump’s proposal to tipped workers “smells more of campaign politics than a really well thought out and principled tax policy proposal,” York added. “And I think the elephant in the room for both candidates is that they haven’t fully addressed ‘what are you going to do about these huge expirations that are scheduled to happen next year?’”

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for further detail.

Incentivizing tipped work

Andrew Lautz, associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said while tipped workers are a “small slice” of the tax base, “you’re talking about a potentially large chunk of revenue that you’re giving up on an annual basis,” depending on how the policy would be rolled out.

“Our current tax system is certainly not designed to treat all income equally, but this proposal, if it were enacted into law, would sort of add a new category of income that is not subject to tax,” Lautz said. “And you know what economic theory would say is that, all else equal, making that change would incentivize people to have tips which are not taxed under this proposal versus regular wage income.”

There is also the potential for “misuse,” he added.

“If Donald Trump is president again next year, and even if he’s not, but this proposal sort of catches interest from policymakers in Congress, it’s very well possible that this could be on the table,” Lautz added.

Janet Holtzblatt, senior fellow at the left-leaning Tax Policy Center run by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips is “unusual.”

“Because tips are a substitute for the wages and salaries that the rest of us get, and if you don’t tax tips, you’re basically not taxing tip workers (on) their wages, making it a tax advantage on their earnings. Those of us who don’t work in industries where tips are paid, we would not get the same tax advantage,” Holtzblatt said.

Minimum wage

Several localities’ wage laws allow employers to pay service workers hourly rates well below the federal minimum wage.

Holtzblatt said the “solution” is for localities to raise the minimum wage for service workers for multiple reasons.

“Tips are not always a predictable form of income,” she said. “And there’s a great deal of variation, the tips that the server gets at the top-notch restaurant are going to be very different than the tips the person in the diner gets.”

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign responded to Trump’s “wild campaign promise” by saying that Biden supports increasing the minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage, “a much bigger deal” than Trump’s proposal, a campaign spokesman wrote in a Monday email to States Newsroom.

Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer for Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which has 60,000 members in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada, said the organization has for decades “fought for tipped workers’ rights and against unfair taxation.”

“Relief is definitely needed for tip earners,” Pappageorge said in a statement over the weekend. “But Nevada workers are smart enough to know the difference between real solutions and wild campaign promises from a convicted felon.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
On 80th anniversary of D-Day invasion, Biden and Macron honor WWII veterans at Normandy https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/06/on-80th-anniversary-of-d-day-invasion-biden-and-macron-honor-wwii-veterans-at-normandy/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/06/on-80th-anniversary-of-d-day-invasion-biden-and-macron-honor-wwii-veterans-at-normandy/#respond Thu, 06 Jun 2024 17:48:47 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20493

President Joe Biden greets U.S. World War II veteran Victor Chaney after French President Emmanuel Macron awarded 11 veterans the Légion d’Honneur at the Normandy American Cemetery during a ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day on June 06, 2024 in Colleville-sur-Mer, France. Veterans, families, political leaders and military personnel are gathering in Normandy to commemorate D-Day, which paved the way for the Allied victory over Germany in World War II (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — “They were brave, they were resolute, they were ready,” President Joe Biden said Thursday at the Normandy American Cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach, one of five along France’s northern coast where Allied troops invaded in 1944 and turned the tide in World War II.

Biden and dozens of U.S. lawmakers traveled to Normandy to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, the largest land, air and sea operation in military history.

More than 150,000 troops from the United States, Britain and Canada landed on the beaches on June 6, beginning a monthslong battle that eventually liberated Europe from Nazi Germany.

Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron honored nearly a dozen D-Day survivors and other World War II veterans on a stage set before an enormous crowd that included service members, U.S. officials, members of Congress and Hollywood’s Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, who dramatized searing World War II scenes on film.

Caretakers and active-duty military members helped the veterans stand before Macron as he pinned France’s Légion d’Honneur, its highest military honor, on their shoulders. Biden shook each veteran’s hand upon receiving the medal.

Among those honored on stage were Hilbert Margol of Georgia, John Wardell of New Jersey, Robert Pedigo of Indiana, Calvin Shiner of California, Edward Berthold of Illinois, Dominick Critelli of New York, Bill Casassa of Kansas, Victor Chaney of Indiana, Raymond Glansberg of Florida, Richard Stewart of Ohio and Jack Kinyon of Illinois.

Roughly 20 miles east, Macron presented the same honor to British veterans at a separate event attended by King Charles III and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the British Normandy Memorial overlooking Gold Beach, according to reporters at the ceremony.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered a speech at nearby Juno Beach, according to reporters present.

‘Bands of brothers’ attend

Biden and first lady Jill Biden met with 41 veterans from the Normandy campaign, 33 of whom served on D-Day, according to reporters traveling with the president. Biden gave each a commemorative coin bearing the presidential seal and images of troops on the beaches of Normandy.

About 180 American WWII veterans attended the ceremony, according to reporters present.

Many veterans, over or approaching age 100, sat on a shaded stage in wheelchairs, covered in blue blankets and wearing red, white and blue scarves.

Miniature American and French flags fluttered beside each white marble cross and Star of David in the rows and rows that mark thousands of Americans laid to rest in Colleville-sur-Mer, France.

More than 9,300 Americans are buried at the 172.5-acre cemetery. Just over 300 headstones are marked unknown. A Wall of the Missing bears nearly 1,600 names of Americans declared missing or lost at sea.

“Many, to state the obvious, never came home. Many survived that longest day and kept on fighting for months until victory was finally won. And a few notable bands of brothers are here with us today,” Biden said during the ceremony that was livestreamed by several outlets, including C-SPAN.

More than 4,400 Allied troops died on the first day of the invasion, including 2,501 Americans.

“Just walk the rows of the cemetery as I had. Nearly 10,000 heroes buried side by side — officers and enlisted, immigrants and native born, different races, different faiths, but all Americans, all served with honor,” Biden said.

‘Isolationism was not the answer’

The day was laden with reminders that Russia’s ground invasion in Ukraine is ongoing.

While Russia fought as an ally in the Battle of Normandy, shoring up the Eastern front, its modern-day President Vladimir Putin continues its assault and land grab in Ukraine.

“Isolationism was not the answer 80 years ago, and it’s not the answer today,” Biden said to applause.

“We know the dark forces that these heroes fought against 80 years ago. They never fade — aggression and greed, the desire to dominate and control, to change borders by force,” Biden said, referring to Russia’s Putin. “These are perennial, the struggle between a dictatorship and freedom is unending.”

“The fact that they (WWII veterans) were heroes here that day does not absolve us from what we have to do today. Democracy is never guaranteed,” Biden said.

Biden said the U.S. “will not walk away” from Ukraine.

“Because if we do, Ukraine will be subjugated, and it will not end there,” Biden said.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended a separate D-Day event at Omaha Beach, according to White House press corps reporters who traveled with Biden to his second event of the day.

The latest $60 billion security package for Ukraine took six months to clear Congress because of strong opposition on the far-right.

Biden said NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization formed four years after WWII that now counts more than 30 member states, is the “the greatest military alliance in the history of the world.”

Precipitated by Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, two additional European nations joined the alliance in 2023 and 2024 — Finland, which shares a long land border with Russia, and Sweden, just across the Baltic Sea.

The alliance has been the target of criticism from presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump. Notably in February, Trump said in a CNN interview that he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries, depending on their financial contributions to the alliance.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said during brief remarks Thursday that Allied nations must “again stand firm against aggression and tyranny” and “uphold the spirit of D-Day.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/06/on-80th-anniversary-of-d-day-invasion-biden-and-macron-honor-wwii-veterans-at-normandy/feed/ 0
Progressives urge Alito recusal from Jan. 6 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/progressives-urge-alito-recusal-from-jan-6-cases-before-the-u-s-supreme-court/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/progressives-urge-alito-recusal-from-jan-6-cases-before-the-u-s-supreme-court/#respond Wed, 05 Jun 2024 21:24:33 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20481

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington speaks during a press conference outside the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, June 5, 2024. Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, at right, stands waiting to approach the microphone. The lawmakers joined progressive groups to urge Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. Both Jayapal and Johnson have introduced bills related to Supreme Court ethics (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Progressive lawmakers and organizers on Wednesday urged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and to testify before Congress about two flags sympathetic to insurrectionists that were displayed outside his two homes.

With the Supreme Court as their backdrop, a group of roughly 20 people held signs reading “Investigate Alito” and decried a “five-alarm fire consuming democracy,” as Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia put it.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said, “Chief Justice (John) Roberts and Justice Alito need to testify publicly and under oath about the flag-waving incidents and how the court handled it.”

Johnson and Jayapal have respectively introduced bills aimed at imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices and mandating an enforceable code of ethics for the nation’s highest bench.

Johnson also joined Democratic U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman of New York Tuesday in introducing a bill to establish an independent investigative body focused on Supreme Court ethics.

Two flags

An upside-down U.S. flag hung outside Alito’s Alexandria, Virginia, home just days after former President Donald Trump’s supporters breached the Capitol, according to photos obtained by the New York Times.

An upside-down American flag is generally considered a sign of distress or protest across the political spectrum.

The Times also broke the story that an “Appeal to Heaven” flag waved above the justice’s Long Island Beach, New Jersey, home during the summer of 2023. The white flag featuring a pine tree can be seen in photos of the Jan. 6 riot, when Trump supporters overwhelmed the Capitol, attacking and injuring police officers with flagpoles, bear spray and other improvised weapons.

In a May 29 letter to lawmakers, Alito said the flags were flown by his wife and that he would refuse calls to recuse himself from cases related to Jan. 6.

“My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not,” he wrote to Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts.

Both senators, who requested a meeting with Chief Justice Roberts about Alito, have championed an ethics bill titled the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which advanced out of committee along party lines in July 2023 but has not received a floor vote.

Supreme Court rulings on the way

Supreme Court opinions are expected this month in two Jan. 6, cases — one involving a former police officer who breached the Capitol and is seeking to have an obstruction charge dropped. The decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 defendant cases, and the 2020 election interference case against Trump, who faces the same obstruction charge.

The court is also set to decide whether Trump is immune from four federal criminal counts alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and knowingly spread false information that whipped his supporters into rioting on Jan. 6.

Trump appointed three of the current sitting Supreme Court justices: conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

At Wednesday’s demonstration, one of the leaders, Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said, “I don’t know about you, but I prefer Supreme Court justices who fly their American flags right side up.”

Harvey’s group was one of several outside the Supreme Court, including Alliance for Justice, whose program director for justice Jake Faleschini also called for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. An investigation by ProPublica revealed the justice received gifts from and traveled with major Republican donors.

“Even Justice Roberts has abandoned his duties. He doesn’t appear either willing or capable of addressing his colleagues’ corruption and abuses of power,” Faleschini said.

More flag displays

The upside-down U.S. flag and “Appeal to Heaven” flag have been displayed in other locations as well.

On Friday, the conservative Heritage Foundation flew an upside-down U.S. flag outside its Washington, D.C., office following Trump’s guilty verdict in New York on hush money charges, according to reporting from NPR and photos from The Associated Press.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, one of the leading voices in the legal movement to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, displays the “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his congressional office, according to reporting by The Associated Press.

The flag has also been spotted outside the office of GOP Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/progressives-urge-alito-recusal-from-jan-6-cases-before-the-u-s-supreme-court/feed/ 0
White nationalist, anti-LGBTQ activity on the rise, annual hate report shows https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/white-nationalist-anti-lgbtq-activity-on-the-rise-annual-hate-report-shows/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/white-nationalist-anti-lgbtq-activity-on-the-rise-annual-hate-report-shows/#respond Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:15:26 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20467

One of the hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the “alt-right” who marched during the “Unite the Right” rally Aug. 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported Tuesday that the number of white nationalist groups in the U.S. rose to a record high in 2023 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Emboldened by the mainstreaming of hard-right politics ahead of a presidential election cycle, white nationalist and anti-LGBTQ groups increased to record levels in the United States last year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest annual report on hate and extremism released Tuesday.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has published the annual report since 1990, documented 835 active anti-government groups, up 133 from 2022’s count, and 595 hate groups, an increase of 72 over the previous year’s figure.

Accounting for a large portion of the increase was a 50% surge in white supremacy hate groups in 2023, the highest jump ever recorded by the SPLC, growing to 165 over 109 in 2022. White power and neo-Nazi rallies across the U.S. totaled 143 in 2023, down from 191 in 2022.

SPLC saw a 33% rise in anti-LGBTQ organizations over last year, bringing the total to 86. The group said the growth was largely attributable to the anti-trans movement on the far-right.

“What we’re seeing now should be a wake-up call for all of us,” Margaret Huang, SPLC’s president and CEO, said on a call with reporters. “Our 2023 report documented more hate and anti-government extremist groups than ever before. With a historic election just months away, these groups are multiplying, mobilizing and making, and in some cases already implementing, plans to undo democracy.”

Hate groups have increased in-person events and leafleting, according to the report. The SPLC tracked nearly 7,000 flyering incidents last year, many including language derived from racist and antisemitic conspiracies.

The groups also launched campaigns to gain influence in mainstream politics, according to the report, namely through the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 manifesto that outlines aspirations for anti-abortion, anti-free press and anti-LGBTQ priorities should presumed GOP presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump win in November.

Nine of the anti-government and hate groups tracked by the SPLC are part of the coalition that supports Project 2025, the organization reports.

Florida a leader in anti-government, hate groups

Among the states leading in numbers of anti-government and hate groups are California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington and Ohio.

California topped the list with 51 hate and 66 anti-government groups.

The SPLC recorded the second-most groups in Florida, which has become a leader in book-banning incidents and restrictive policies on teachers. The Sunshine State is home to 43 hate and 71 anti-government organizations, according to the report, and is the birthplace of recently influential “parental rights” group Moms for Liberty.

Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice was invited in March 2023 to testify before a U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary subcommittee then chaired by Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who is now House speaker. 

The annual survey of hate groups tracked 116 hate-leafleting incidents in Florida, where the antisemitic groups rallied and flyered on multiple occasions, including over Labor Day when groups named the Goyim Defense League, The Order of the Black Sun and the Maine-based Blood Tribe marched in Orlando wielding flags with swastikas and making Nazi salutes.

Antisemitism, already on the rise, became more pronounced following Israel’s continuing offensive on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“Antisemitic conspiracies seeped into mainstream narratives at an alarming pace and 2023. Specifically after Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, the far right blurred the lines between legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’s actions and outright antisemitism,” R.G. Cravens, SPLC’s senior research analyst for its Intelligence Project, said during Tuesday’s call with reporters.

Following the Hamas attack, the so-called Goyim Defense League distributed a flyer online and in person that read “FREE PALESTINE,” as a “not-so-thinly-veiled attempt at stoking more antisemitism and using Palestinian people to further their own aims,” according to the report.

Christian ‘dominionism’

The SPLC report also cited the expanding influence of extreme Christian nationalism as a driver for the growing number of anti-government organizations.

The report expresses concern over the rise in the Republican ranks of Johnson, a former senior lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group behind the U.S. Supreme Court case that precipitated the overturning of the federal right to abortion.

Johnson’s far-right politics, including his anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions and his advocacy to blur Christianity and the state, are well documented.

Spokespeople for Johnson did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom describes SPLC as a “discredited” and “scandal-ridden group,” and denounces the organization’s “hate map.” The SPLC currently has an interactive U.S. map pinpointing locations of anti-government and hate groups.

“Eventually, their definition of hate included huge swaths of well-respected, mainstream, conservative America,” according to a post on the Alliance for Defending Freedom website.

The SPLC report specifically warns about the rise of the National Apostolic Reformation, a Christian movement made up of “dominionist leaders” that aim to “seize control” of seven areas of society, including government, education and business.

Decline in militias

One area in which the report documented a decline is in the militia movement, which suffered after the hundreds of Department of Justice prosecutions following the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The numbers of militias dropped to 52 in 2023, from 61 in 2022.

One of the most prominent militias, the Oath Keepers, significantly diminished its presence following the 2023 conviction and sentencing of its leader Stewart Rhodes for seditious conspiracy leading up to and during the Jan. 6 attack.

The Oath Keepers active militia chapters dropped to 10 in 2023 from 79 in 2022.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/05/white-nationalist-anti-lgbtq-activity-on-the-rise-annual-hate-report-shows/feed/ 0
An angry Trump pledges to appeal ‘this scam’ conviction as Republicans vow resistance https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/31/an-angry-trump-pledges-to-appeal-this-scam-conviction-as-republicans-vow-resistance/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/31/an-angry-trump-pledges-to-appeal-this-scam-conviction-as-republicans-vow-resistance/#respond Fri, 31 May 2024 22:25:42 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20435

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, speaks Friday during a press conference at Trump Tower in New York City. Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, vowed to launch an appeal based “on many things” he considered unfair during his New York trial, he said Friday in the lobby of Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan.

Meanwhile Friday, legal and political analysts predicted he will spend little if any time in jail depending on the outcome of that appeal, fundraising among supportive Republicans appeared to surge and eight GOP members of the U.S. Senate pledged they will not support any Democratic priorities or nominations.

The reactions came as Americans continued to digest the news that on Thursday, a jury in Lower Manhattan found the Republican Party’s presumed 2024 presidential nominee guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a felony in New York.

The roughly seven-week proceeding marked the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

“We’re going to be appealing this scam,” Trump said at his late-morning press conference, referring to New York Justice Juan Merchan as a “tyrant.”

Over about 30 minutes of often misleading or false comments delivered in his familiar stream-of-consciousness style that jumped from topic to topic, Trump complained about aspects of the trial, said the case shouldn’t have been prosecuted at all and made campaign-style appeals on immigration and crime.

Trump has centered his public relations defense on the idea that the prosecution was politically motivated, often blaming the Biden administration, and he repeated the theme throughout his Friday remarks.

“If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” he said.

President Joe Biden said Friday that Trump “was given every opportunity to defend himself.”

“It was a state case, not a federal case. It was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you, like millions of Americans who’ve served on juries. This jury was chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen. It was a process that Donald Trump’s attorney was part of,” Biden said from the White House before delivering remarks on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Biden said Trump now has the opportunity “as he should” to appeal, just like anyone else who is tried in the U.S.

“That’s how the American system of justice works,” Biden said. “It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”

Jail time?

Trump told the crowd Friday morning he could spend “187 years” in jail for being found guilty of falsifying business records. It was not clear how he arrived at that number.

Most observers of his trial and the New York justice system disagree with that estimate.

Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for July 11 at 10 a.m. Eastern, just four days before the Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the GOP will officially nominate Trump for president in November’s election.

Trump is convicted of class E felonies, the lowest level felony in New York state, and each carries the possibility of probation to up to four years in prison.

Any incarceration sentence up to a year would be served in the city’s Rikers Island jail or another local facility. Incarceration beyond that time frame would be served at a state facility.

“If that jail sentence happens, it probably will be less than a year,” said Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel in the Obama administration, who has been commenting on the indictment and trial for months.

Eisen spoke during a virtual press conference hosted by the Defend Democracy Project.

New York state law experts say Merchan may not be inclined to imprison a former, and possibly future, U.S. president. And, if he sentences Trump to any length of incarceration, it will likely be stayed — a temporary stop to the action —pending appeal.

Trump could remain free on bail conditions set by the court, or no bail conditions, subject to a decision by the appeals court and potentially any other review if an appeals judge sends the case to the state’s highest court.

“When there is a stay pending appeal, generally, the process is expedited more quickly than it would be if the defendant was at liberty and there was no stay. But even so, this is going to go beyond the election,” said retired New York Supreme Court Judge Michael Obus at the press conference with Eisen.

Appeal strategy?

While Trump said Friday morning he plans to appeal the verdict based on “many things,” legal observers speculate his team’s approach may come down to a few options.

In New York, falsifying a business record is illegal in the first degree when the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

While the jurors had to unanimously agree on an intent to commit another crime, they did not have to agree unanimously on what that underlying crime was, according to Merchan’s instructions to the jury prior to deliberations.

Merchan said jurors could consider three options for the other crime: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act; falsification of other business records; or, violation of tax laws.

Obus said a “non-frivolous argument” that Trump’s team might use is that one of those underlying crimes was a federal, not a state crime.

“That’s the kind of argument that we might see on appeal — the argument being that New York courts don’t have the authority to prosecute the case with that being the object crime because it’s a federal crime,” Obus said. “I don’t think that’ll be successful.”

In addition to the challenge regarding federal election law, Shane T. Stansbury of Duke Law told States Newsroom in an interview Friday that he expects to see Trump’s legal team challenge evidentiary issues.

“For example, I would expect that the defense would make a claim that the salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels about the details of her sexual encounter with Donald Trump was unfairly prejudicial,” Stansbury said.

Also, Trump’s lawyers might challenge the judge’s decision to strike from defense attorney Todd Blanche’s closing statement a plea he made to the jury, asking them to not send Trump “to prison.”

The charge against Trump could, or could not, result in prison time.

“You can imagine the defense saying that that correction may have prejudiced the jury. Now, I should say that those kinds of evidentiary issues are a much steeper climb for the defense,” Stansbury said.

‘A legal expense’

Trump remains under a gag order imposed by Merchan in March to keep the former president from further attacking court staff and potential witnesses online.

Trump violated the order 10 times, leading Merchan to fine him $9,000 on April 30, and again $1,000 on May 6.

During his comments Friday morning, Trump complained of having to pay “thousands of dollars” because of his “nasty gag order.”

Still, Trump spent several minutes during his remarks talking about one of the prosecution’s star witnesses, his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

According to testimony and document evidence presented during trial, Cohen wired $130,000 of his own money to porn star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump. Trump then reimbursed Cohen the following year under the guise of “legal expenses.”

Prosecutors never should have brought the case accusing him of falsifying business records, Trump said.

The payments to Cohen were for Cohen to create a nondisclosure agreement with Daniels and secure her signature, which is legal, Trump said Friday. That was a legal service, and the payments were properly recorded that way, he said.

“I paid a lawyer a legal expense,” he said.

“The whole thing is legal expense was marked down as legal expense,” he said. “Think of it: This is the crime that I committed that I’m supposed to go to jail for 187 years for.”

Trump, who wouldn’t say Cohen’s name Friday because of the gag order, said Cohen was not a “fixer” as he is often described, but a lawyer in good standing.

“By the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer,” Trump said. “Now I’m not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. But, you know, he’s a sleazebag. Everybody knows that. Took me a while to find out. But he was effective. He did work. But he wasn’t a fixer. He was a lawyer.”

Trump said he wanted to testify at his trial, but was advised not to by his lawyers.

Attacks on Biden 

Trump pivoted nearly immediately after his remarks began to campaign-style attacks on Biden’s administration and the anti-immigration positions that comprise Trump’s most consistent policy message since his political career began in 2015.

He focused on immigrants from predominantly non-white countries and made false claims that many had been institutionalized in prison and mental hospitals.

“Millions and millions of people are flowing in from all parts of the world, not just South America, from Africa, from Asia and from the Middle East, and they’re coming in from jails and prisons, and they’re coming in from mental institutions and insane asylums,” he said. “And we have a president and a group of fascists that don’t want to do anything about it.”

He also called crime “rampant in New York.” He added that Biden wanted to quadruple taxes and “make it impossible for you to get a car,” neither of which are based on Biden’s actual policy positions.

In a statement, Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler called Trump’s remarks “unhinged.”

“America just witnessed a confused, desperate, and defeated Donald Trump ramble about his own personal grievances and lie about the American justice system, leaving anyone watching with one obvious conclusion: This man cannot be president of the United States,” Tyler wrote. “Unhinged by his 2020 election loss and spiraling from his criminal convictions, Trump is consumed by his own thirst for revenge and retribution.”

GOP convention in less than two months

The Republican National Convention begins July 15. The Republican National Committee, which called Thursday’s verdict “rigged,” did not immediately respond to questions Friday about whether it will adjust plans in the event Trump is placed under any restrictions during his July 11 sentencing.

Trump encouraged supporters to continue backing his campaign as a response to the verdict, calling Nov. 5 – Election Day – “the most important day in the history of our country.”

Throughout his remarks Friday, he touted an online poll conducted by J.L. Partners and published in the conservative British tabloid The Daily Mail on Friday that showed Trump’s approval rating gained points after the verdict.

There were signs that showed Republican support, at least, consolidated even more behind Trump following the verdict.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign organization for U.S. Senate Republicans, said it had its highest fundraising day of the cycle Thursday, bringing in $360,000 in donations that the group directly attributed to the verdict in Manhattan.

Other official GOP channels, including the Republican National Committee social media accounts, echoed Trump’s message that the former president was the victim of a political prosecution and predicted the conviction would push voters toward Trump.

Elected Republicans throughout the country continued Friday to almost universally reject the verdict and defend Trump.

A group of eight U.S. Senate Republicans – Mike Lee of Utah, J.D. Vance of Ohio, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Rick Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida and Roger Marshall of Kansas – signed a letter Friday pledging to increase their resistance to administration priorities in response to the verdict.

“Those who turned our judicial system into a political cudgel must be held accountable,” Lee said in a post to X. “We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations, and we invite all concerned Senators to join our stand.”

The Biden administration and congressional Democrats played no role in the trial, which was in New York state court.

‘No one is above the law’

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, said that Thursday’s verdict shows that “no one is above the law.”

Nadler was joined by Eisen, along with accountability advocates and historians, on a Friday webinar for the press hosted by watchdog group Public Citizen. Eisen participated in multiple press appearances Friday.

Nadler said that Republicans are attempting to sow distrust in the verdict, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio, has already sent a letter to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg requesting that he testify in a hearing before the panel’s Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee on June 13.

Nadler said he disagreed with Jordan’s decision to request testimony from the DA who prosecuted Trump.

“It’s a continuing attempt to bully the prosecutors into abandoning prosecutions and to tell the country the false story of persecution of the president (Trump) and to help undermine confidence in the criminal justice system,” Nadler said.

Nadler said the New York trial was important because it’s likely going to be the only trial that finishes before the November elections. Trump faces two federal criminal cases, and another criminal case in Georgia.

“It is very important for the American people to know, before an election, that they’re dealing with a convicted felon,” Nadler said.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University who specializes in authoritarianism, propaganda and democracy protection, said during the virtual press conference that the trial was a demonstration of American democracy being upheld.

“The fact this trial took place at all and was able to unfold in the professional way it did is a testament to the worth and functioning of our democracy,” she said.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/31/an-angry-trump-pledges-to-appeal-this-scam-conviction-as-republicans-vow-resistance/feed/ 0
Free direct filing of federal taxes may be offered soon throughout the U.S. https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/free-direct-filing-of-federal-taxes-may-be-offered-soon-throughout-the-u-s/ Thu, 30 May 2024 21:37:07 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=20408

After the success of the Direct File pilot program this year, the IRS plans to make permanent the free filing of federal tax returns. (Phillip Rubino/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Taxpayers across the United States could be guaranteed a free public option to file federal tax returns online as the Internal Revenue Service announced plans Thursday to make its Direct File program permanent.

The pilot program offered in 12 states from March to April drew roughly 140,000 accepted returns this filing season and saved participants $5.6 million in tax preparation costs and helped filers receive $90 million in refunds, according to the IRS.

The states involved in this year’s pilot included Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

The agency is now inviting all 50 states to participate and will accommodate however many sign on, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel told reporters on a call Thursday morning.

“We heard directly from hundreds of organizations across the country, more than 100 members of Congress, individual direct file users and those that are interested in using direct file. The clear message is that many taxpayers across the nation want the IRS to provide options for filing electronically at no cost,” Werfel said.

Yellen touted results of a user survey that showed 90% of participants rate their experience as excellent or above average.

“They appreciated that it allowed them to quickly fix mistakes and there were no fees or upsells. The success of the Direct File pilot means there’s now strong demand for direct file from taxpayers across the country,” Yellen said.

The average American spends $270 and 13 hours filing their taxes, according to the agency’s Taxpayer Burden Survey.

The program ‘delivered’

The left-leaning Economic Security Project, which advocates for tax credits for low-income and middle class households, praised the IRS decision to make permanent the program that “delivered on the promise of free and simplified tax filing for taxpayers.”

“It was evident that taxpayers saw the value of Direct File, both in making their lives easier and demonstrating what great government customer service looks like,” Adam Ruben, the organization’s vice president of campaigns and political strategy, said in a statement Thursday.

“We are already working with our partners in states across the nation to support the expansion of Direct File next year so more taxpayers can take advantage of free and simplified tax filing in the next tax season,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top tax writer of the upper chamber, praised the IRS announcement in a statement Thursday as “tremendous news for taxpayers all over the country who are tired of getting ripped off by the big tax prep companies that routinely upcharge for unnecessary services, oversell the quality of their products and offer crummy customer service.”

Werfel said the IRS cannot provide an estimated cost of expanding the program because the agency has yet to learn how many states will jump on board.

The cost to run the program this year totaled $31.8 million, breaking down to $24.6 million in IRS costs, and $7.2 million in U.S. Digital Service costs to create the online platform, Werfel said.

Among the tens of billions of dollars Congress authorized for the IRS in its 2022 budget reconciliation law, otherwise known as the Inflation Reduction Act, $15 million was earmarked for exploring a way for the public to electronically file federal returns for free directly to the government, rather than through a third party.

This year’s pilot program was only available to taxpayers with basic tax situations, including W-2 income or simple credits and deductions, like the child tax credit or student loan interest.

“Our goal is to gradually expand the scope of Direct File to support most common tax situations, focusing in particular on tax situations that impact working families,” Werfel said.

When asked on the call whether the success of the program depends on who is in the Oval Office next year, Werfel responded, “I truly believe that the vision that the IRS has for the future tax administration is a nonpartisan one.”

Opposition from GOP

The free public program was met with fierce opposition from congressional Republicans and GOP state officials who criticized it as redundant, “unconstitutional” and a threat to state tax revenue.

Many cited the already established IRS Free File program, a regularly evolving partnership between the federal agency and private tax prep software companies that provide a free federal return filing option.

That 22-year-old program has been riddled with issues, including low participation and “confusion and complexity” that led millions of eligible taxpayers to actually pay the commercial partners who were supposed to offer the free service, according to a 2019 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report.

A 2019 ProPublica investigation revealed deliberate tactics by Free File participant Intuit, maker of TurboTax, to cloud access to the free option.

Nearly two dozen state auditors, comptrollers and treasurers from 18 states urged the IRS to “shut down” the new Direct File pilot program because users could be confused about having to file a state return separately, therefore resulting in a loss in state revenue.

This argument is based on the fact that many commercial tax prep software companies and private tax preparers automatically prompt taxpayers to complete their state returns after filing the federal one.

The state officials who signed on to the March 25 letter to the IRS hailed from Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Two of the Direct File pilot program states — Arizona and New York — worked with the nonprofit Code for America to integrate a free state tax return filing option in concert with Direct File. The nonprofit reported that of the state returns filed through its tool, 98% were accepted.

Several state governments already offer free public electronic filing for state income tax returns that users must access separately through dedicated state websites, including Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, which offer the service regardless of income level. Some states, like California and Iowa, have income thresholds for free filing.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

]]>
Trump found guilty on 34 felony counts in NY hush money trial https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/30/breaking-trump-found-guilty-on-34-felony-counts-in-ny-hush-money-trial/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/30/breaking-trump-found-guilty-on-34-felony-counts-in-ny-hush-money-trial/#respond Thu, 30 May 2024 21:23:20 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20402

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears in court Thursday for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Jurors in New York state court on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star ultimately to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

The first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president wrapped up in Manhattan, marking an extraordinary moment in American history not only for a former leader, but for one who is seeking to again hold the Oval Office. Trump, the Republican Party’s presumed 2024 presidential nominee, is now a convicted felon.

The jury deliberated for more than 11 hours, beginning Wednesday just before 11:30 a.m. Eastern and delivering the verdict to Justice Juan Merchan just after 5 p.m. Thursday, according to reporters at the courthouse.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings. States Newsroom covered the trial in person on May 20.

Trump now faces penalties ranging from probation to up to four years in prison for each charge of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Merchan set a sentencing date for July 11 at 10 a.m. That’s just days before the Republican National Convention, where Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the party’s presidential candidate.

New York state prosecutors charged 34 felonies against the former president for each of the 11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries tied to reimbursing his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

Cohen, often referred to as Trump’s former “fixer,” said during trial testimony that he wired $130,000 to adult film star and director Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.

Three criminal cases, two federal and one in Georgia, also still hang in the balance for Trump, but the likelihood of another trial happening before November’s election is slim.

Trump speaks after verdict

Trump briefly spoke to news cameras outside the courtroom, criticizing the proceeding as a “rigged, disgraceful trial.”

“The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people, and they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here,” Trump said in remarks live-streamed and cataloged on C-SPAN.

As he has repeated almost daily for the cameras, Trump again called Merchan a “conflicted” judge and falsely claimed the case “was done by the Biden administration.”

The charges were brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whom Trump described during his post-verdict comments as “Soros-funded,” a common mantra from Trump’s party referring to Hungarian-American billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

During his roughly three-minute remarks, Trump also referred to immigration at the U.S. Southern border, a major campaign rallying cry for Republicans.

“We don’t have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We’re a nation in decline, serious decline. Millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now,” Trump said before exiting the hallway without answering shouted questions from reporters.

Despite being a convicted felon, Trump will still be able to vote in November in Palm Beach County, Florida, where he is registered, as long as he is not incarcerated.

That’s because Florida law only bars voting for convicts tried in a separate state if that state also restricts them; a 2021 New York law restored voting rights for convicted felons following a release from prison and regardless if they are on parole, according to reporting by PolitiFact.

House speaker sees ‘shameful day in American history’

Republicans in Congress and other top GOP officials gathered with Trump at the courthouse for support during the trial and members of the GOP immediately decried the verdict.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican who was among those who made the trek, released a statement saying the verdict marked “a shameful day in American history.”

“Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon,” Johnson wrote. “This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.”

Johnson was referring to the testimony from Cohen, who served time in prison for campaign finance crimes related to hush money payments.

Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, blasted it as the result of an unfair political process.

“This was never about justice. It was always about politics,” she wrote on X. “ Americans see through Democrats’ weaponization of our justice system and this sham trial as a desperate attempt to persecute Trump and block his re-election.”

The Trump campaign almost immediately solicited donations following the verdict, posting a link on his Truth Social platform to his WinRed donation portal.

Trump’s son Eric Trump reacted on X with “May 30th, 2024 might be remembered as the day Donald J. Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election.”

Video posted from reporters outside the courthouse showed a black SUV driving slowly outside the courthouse while members of the news media held cameras and some scattered in the crowd waved Trump flags and shouted “we love you.”

‘The jury has spoken’ 

In a Thursday evening press conference, Bragg thanked the jurors and his team of prosecutors.

While affirming the case’s historical importance, Bragg said his office worked the case as they would any other, countering the GOP narrative that the case was politically motivated.

The case was decided on “the evidence and the law alone,” he said.

“Donald J. Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election,” he said.

“While this defendant may be unlike any other in American history, we arrived at this trial – and ultimately today at this verdict – in the same manner as every other case that comes to the courtroom doors: By following the facts and the law, and doing so without fear or favor.”

Bragg praised “the 12 everyday New Yorkers,” who paid careful attention to a complicated documents-based case to reach a unanimous decision. The jurors’ service represented the “cornerstone” of the “phenomenal” U.S. system of justice, he said.

Asked if he wanted to respond to any of the personal attacks Trump launched against him and his prosecution team, Bragg declined.

Another reporter asked Bragg about criticism of his investigation of the case and his decision to bring a prosecution.

“I did my job. Our job is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor. And that’s exactly what we did here,” he said.

“Many voices out there,” he added. “The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury. And the jury has spoken.”

Trials in limbo in D.C., Georgia, Florida

The verdict brought to a close the historic first criminal proceeding against a former sitting American president, albeit at the state level.

Trump is currently mired in a fight for absolute immunity from federal criminal charges accusing him of scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision on his immunity claim is pending. Justices heard arguments in the case on April 25.

Meanwhile in Florida, federal District Judge Aileen Cannon has indefinitely postponed the U.S. case against Trump for mishandling and refusing to return classified documents that he hid at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office.

Trump faces another state case in Georgia, along with several co-conspirators, on racketeering and conspiracy charges related to the state’s 2020 presidential election results. The case has been held up due to pretrial disputes over alleged misconduct by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Biden campaign reacts

A spokesman for President Joe Biden’s campaign, Michael Tyler, said in a statement that the verdict showed “no one is above the law” and that Trump remained a threat to democracy whom voters should reject.

“Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain,” Tyler wrote. “But today’s verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.”

“The threat Trump poses to our democracy has never been greater,” Tyler continued. “He is running an increasingly unhinged campaign of revenge and retribution, pledging to be a dictator ‘on day one’ and calling for our Constitution to be ‘terminated’ so he can regain and keep power. A second Trump term means chaos, ripping away Americans’ freedoms and fomenting political violence – and the American people will reject it this November.”

The Biden White House had much less to say.

Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office, said in a one-sentence email: “We respect the rule of law, and have no additional comment.”

Members of Congress speak out

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, said in a statement the guilty decision from the jurors represented “a devastating defeat for any American who believes in the critical legal tenet that justice is blind.”

“This verdict will not withstand an appeal, and was only brought as an attempt to interfere with the 2024 election,” Scalise wrote. “The radical partisan Democrats behind this abuse of our justice system will not prevail. The voters will settle this on November 5th.”

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s federal courts subcommittee, released a statement saying that an “individual who has been convicted of 34 felony counts and shows zero respect for the rule of law is not fit to lead the greatest nation in the world.”

“It’s only in honest courtrooms that the former president has been unable to lie and bully his way out of trouble,” Whitehouse said. “Americans trust juries for good reason.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis posted on social media that he was “shocked by the verdict considering that this case should have never been brought forward.”

“From the beginning, it was clear that a radical, politically-motivated state prosecutor was using the full weight of his office to go after President Trump at the same time he turned a blind eye to violent criminals,” Tillis wrote. “I expect and hope that President Trump will appeal this verdict to address fundamental questions, including whether President Trump received a fair trial and whether the Manhattan D.A. even had jurisdiction on a federal election matter.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said the jury’s decision showed that America’s justice system functioned the way it was supposed to.

“Today our system of justice worked, and former President Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts by a jury of American citizens,” McCollum wrote on social media. “No person is above the law.”

A ‘sham’ or an ‘affirmation’? 

Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds wrote in a statement the trial was a “sham.”

“For years, Democrats like Alvin Bragg have been trying to put President Trump in jail with complete disregard for our democracy and the will of the American people,” Reynolds wrote. “The only verdict that matters is the one at the ballot box in November where the American people will elect President Trump again.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz wrote on social media that the jury’s guilty verdict wasn’t political.

“A former president being convicted is nothing to be celebrated, but it is an affirmation that nobody is above the law,” Moskowitz wrote. “This verdict was reached by a jury of Trump’s peers, by citizens of the American justice system, not by a judge or by a political opponent.”

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rejected the verdict, writing on social media it was a “travesty of justice.”

“The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process, designed to keep President Trump off the campaign trail and avoid bringing attention to President Biden’s failing radical policies,” Jordan wrote.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine posted on social media the “verdict is proof that no one is above the law in this country.”

“It’s also tragic in this way — Americans put the reins of leadership in the hands of a person whose character is so far beneath the office that no rational adult would ever encourage young people to emulate … his behavior,” Kaine wrote.

“Trump’s lack of character has caught up to him,” Kaine added. “And Americans — once again — have received a clear warning about a person who wants to seize leadership once again. I pray that we heed the warning.”

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said Thursday was a “sad day for all Americans.”

“This verdict in New York is another example of Democrats being relentless in their pursuit to weaponize the courts, abuse America’s judicial system, and target President Joe Biden’s political opposition,” Comer wrote. “One thing is clear: Democrats are afraid to face Donald Trump. Americans will make their voices heard this November.”

Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, the Republican nominee for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat, urged restraint in a social media post.

“Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process,” Hogan wrote. “At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders — regardless of party — must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.”

Jacob Fischler and Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/30/breaking-trump-found-guilty-on-34-felony-counts-in-ny-hush-money-trial/feed/ 0
Missouri residents affected by radiation exposure push Congress to extend benefits https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/29/missouri-residents-affected-by-radiation-exposure-push-congress-to-extend-benefits/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/29/missouri-residents-affected-by-radiation-exposure-push-congress-to-extend-benefits/#respond Wed, 29 May 2024 10:55:02 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20356

Tammy Tesson Puhlmann, 63, who now lives in Villa Ridge, Missouri, shows photos of her son Drew as she sat in the Russell Senate Office Building on May 22. Puhlmann’s son died of cancer at age 30, and she was among 10 eastern Missouri residents speaking to lawmakers on Capitol Hill about expanding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A fund to compensate Americans sickened by exposure to atomic bomb tests, uranium mining and radioactive waste expires in just under 15 days, and activists and lawmakers are scrambling to keep the fund active and open to additional victims.

A bill to reauthorize and expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, often shortened to RECA, sailed through the U.S. Senate in early March on a bipartisan 69-30 vote, but the House has yet to take it up for a vote.

Critics cite high costs, but bipartisan lawmakers and activists rallying in favor of the bill say the victims have already paid the price through medical bills and lost loved ones, and that it’s ultimately the government’s wrong to make right.

The U.S. Senate-passed legislation, championed by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, aims to extend the program by six years and expand eligibility to several new locations, including his state of Missouri where, over decades, residents witnessed numerous rare similar cancers among neighbors in and around St. Louis.

Chemical plants in downtown St. Louis and Weldon Spring, Missouri, processed uranium during the nation’s WWII effort to build the first atomic bomb. Radioactive waste from the plants were stored and dumped around the area.

States Newsroom’s Missouri Independent, in collaboration with the Associated Press and MuckRock, obtained and combed through thousands of government records that revealed the government downplayed and ignored the dangers of the radioactive waste.

‘The government has done this’

Tammy Tesson Puhlmann, 63, who lived for decades in Florissant, Missouri, sat in the Russell Senate Office Building Wednesday showing photos of her son Drew — first, as a baby who was born with a rare blood disease, and then as a thin 30-year-old man just a week before he died of cancer.

“If I can prevent one mom from having to go through something like this, I would do anything,” she said through tears. “It’s the most unbearable feeling in the world to know that there is nothing you can do for your child, and to know that the government has done this.”

Puhlmann was among 10 eastern Missouri residents and state representatives who met with 10 lawmakers on Wednesday, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise; U.S. Reps. Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer, both Republicans of Missouri; and the state’s GOP Sens. Eric Schmitt and Hawley.

Missouri state Reps. Tricia Byrnes and Richard West, both Republicans, who represent districts just outside St. Louis, flipped through maps and photos documenting the contaminated sites, including where a uranium processing plant and byproduct dumping ground were located next to Francis Howell High School, which Byrnes attended.

“Look how close it was to all of the contamination. That high school is still there,” Byrnes said, pointing to a map.

To Byrnes’ left sat Kristin Denbow, a 1988 Francis Howell graduate who has been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer in the bone marrow.

“We have memories of men in full containment suits walking around the grounds of our high school while we were there,” Denbow said.

Susie Gaffney, 66, who now lives in O’Fallon, Missouri, holds a packet of papers that she distributed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2024. The packet contained photos of her son Joey, 45, who developed thyroid cancer at 18, and her husband, Jim, 68, who survived bladder cancer and now lives with myelodysplastic syndrome. Three generations of her family lived along Coldwater Creek, which is contaminated with radioactive waste. (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

‘This has been our lives’

Three generations of Susie Gaffney’s family made their homes in the suburbs of St. Louis near Coldwater Creek, unaware that radioactive waste relocated from the downtown uranium plant was leaking into the water.

Susie’s husband, Jim, grew up in a house beside the creek and not far from Jana Elementary School, which closed in 2023 because of radioactive contamination.

“Jim grew up playing in the creek, everybody did. Everybody who tells the creek stories played (there). It was awesome, it wasn’t deep. Kids fished, they made mudslides. It was a great place to live,” Gaffney said.

Jim, whose mother died of colon cancer after being diagnosed in her 40s, developed lymphoma at the age of 24.

When Susie and Jim’s son Joey was an infant, they moved to a nearby subdivision named Wedgewood, a few miles down the creek. Joey also played in the water as a child.

Joey was diagnosed at 18 with thyroid cancer and eventually underwent a thyroidectomy. Gaffney, now 66, recalls the doctors telling her, “This kid is Chernobyl.”

“‘This is what happened in Chernobyl. He has metastasized thyroid cancer. This is what happened there. He had to be exposed to radiation’ and naively I said, ‘Well, where?’ And so this has been our lives,” she said.

Joey is now 45. Jim, 68, was also diagnosed with bladder cancer and is now living with myelodysplastic syndrome, Gaffney said.

“He’s living on blood transfusions,” she said, pointing to a photo of him on a packet of papers she was handing out to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Below the photo of Jim was a map of the region with red dots for each cancer case.

“I just want people to tunnel in,” Gaffney said. “Pretend you’re on Google Earth, zoom all the way down and get on those front doors and picture our lifespan with health care, with depression, with anxiety, fear. Our quality of life has definitely been affected, all of us.”

Debate on Capitol Hill

The government’s nearly expired compensation program pays one-time sums of $75,000 to those who developed certain diseases after working on U.S. nuclear tests before 1963. It pays $50,000 to those who lived in select counties downwind from test explosion sites between January 1951 and October 1958, and the month of July in 1962, in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Uranium industry workers who were employed in 11 states from 1942 to 1971 and subsequently developed eligible illnesses qualify for $100,000.

Hawley’s bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, would also expand to include the entirety of Arizona, Nevada and Utah, and include downwind and affected areas in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Guam. Additionally, the one-time compensation sums to victims or surviving family members would increase to $100,000.

If enacted, the legislation would reach areas including ZIP codes in Alaska, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, where communities were impacted by radioactive waste dumping, uranium processing and other related activities surrounding the testing.

The bill’s estimated cost of $50 billion to $60 billion has drawn criticism. Hawley’s office confirmed the estimate. There is not an official budget score.

On Thursday, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, asked for unanimous consent on the Senate floor for his proposed “clean extension” of the program as it exists for another two years — only covering those affected in areas of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Lee cited the risk of “inflating the deficit by at least $60 billion” and questioned whether enough data backs contamination in the additional areas in Hawley’s bill.

“You see, the House of Representatives has thus far declined to take up and pass Sen. Hawley’s previous bill, with some signaling concern and raising some of the concerns that I just restated,” the Utah Republican said.

Hawley objected, and Luján spoke in support of the objection.

“Study after study has shown the expanse of the nuclear radiation. Here is a study from 1997, from 2005, another from 2005, from 2023, all showing that the nuclear radiation is far beyond the contours of the original RECA bill passed in 1990,” Hawley said. “Yet my friend from Utah wants to keep doing the same old thing, leaving out in the cold hundreds of thousands of Americans. I will not consent to it.”

Lee responded, saying he understood the “impassioned pleas” from Hawley and Luján. He offered an updated version that includes Missouri and New Mexico, but leaves out other states and Guam. His office cites an unofficial budget score of $30 billion.

“There are other states in (Hawley’s) legislation pending in the House that deal with law in the Marshall Islands, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, and perhaps one or two other jurisdictions. The claims of those states are not on equal footing,” Lee said.

“That is where a lot of the — not all, but a lot of the expense is accrued and a lot of concerns expressed in the House impeding its quick passage over there that might lead to it not being able to be passed at all,” he continued.

Hawley again objected, saying he “will not be party to any attempt at some halfway measure, some short stopgap bill, or some effort to sweep this under the rug.”

A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, of Louisiana, told States Newsroom on May 15 that “The Speaker understands and appreciates Senator Hawley’s position and is working closely with interested members and stakeholders to chart a path forward for the House.”

RECA was established in 1990.

The U.S. conducted more than 1,000 atomic weapons tests from 1945 to 1992 — the first at the Trinity Test site near Alamogordo, New Mexico, where scientists detonated the Manhattan Project’s first atomic bomb prior to the U.S. dropping the weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II.

As of June 2022, the government has approved more than 36,000 RECA claims for more than $2.3 billion in benefits.

Unless the fund is extended, claims have to be postmarked by June 10, 2024, according to the Department of Justice, which administers the payouts.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/29/missouri-residents-affected-by-radiation-exposure-push-congress-to-extend-benefits/feed/ 0
The jury now will decide Trump’s fate in hush money trial, after lengthy closing arguments https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/28/the-jury-now-will-decide-trumps-fate-in-hush-money-trial-after-lengthy-closing-arguments/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/28/the-jury-now-will-decide-trumps-fate-in-hush-money-trial-after-lengthy-closing-arguments/#respond Wed, 29 May 2024 01:47:00 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20368

Former U.S. Capitol Police officers Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn, who were overwhelmed by the mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6, are interviewed Tuesday during former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Closing arguments in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president concluded Tuesday, leaving the jury to now decide if Donald Trump is guilty of faking reimbursement to his personal lawyer for hush money paid to a porn star just before the 2016 presidential election.

Just outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse during summations, the campaign to reelect President Joe Biden  held a press conference featuring actor Robert DeNiro and two former U.S. Capitol Police officers who were overwhelmed by the angry mob of Trump supporters who stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021.

DeNiro bickered with a heckler and the Trump campaign then followed with its own press conference.

The trial’s final day of arguments wrapped up after nearly eight hours of closing arguments, during which the defense portrayed Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen as the “M.V.P. of liars” and Trump as a victim of extortion and too busy a leader in 2017 to understand the payments to Cohen.

Meanwhile, the prosecution walked jurors through excruciating details of events and witness testimony to show that Trump’s objective, along with those in his orbit, was to “hoodwink the American voter” leading up to the 2016 election, according to reporters at the courthouse.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings. States Newsroom covered the trial in person on May 20.

Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is charged with 34 felonies, one for each of the 11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries that New York state prosecutors allege were cooked-up as routine “legal expenses,” hiding what were really reimbursements to Cohen for paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump denies any wrongdoing

Daniels, also an adult film director, testified in early May to a 2006 sexual encounter at a Lake Tahoe golf tournament with Trump, which he maintains never happened.

Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, later told the jurors that he wired Daniels $130,000 to secure her signature on a nondisclosure agreement in late October 2016, and that Trump was aware.

Cohen’s payment swiftly followed the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump was recorded telling a TV host that his fame allows him to grab women by the genitals.

The revelation spun Trump’s campaign into a frenzy over possibly losing women voters, additional witnesses testified.

Further, Cohen testified that Trump was present during conversations to hatch a plan with the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to repay Cohen under the guise of “legal expenses.” Cohen would eventually receive a grossed-up sum of $420,000 to account for a bonus and taxes.

The hush money trial, which began in mid-April, is likely the only one to occur prior to the November election. Three other criminal cases against the former president, two federal and one in Georgia, remain stalled.

Throughout the six-week trial, jurors heard from nearly two dozen witnesses called by the prosecution to establish Trump’s history of working to suppress negative stories.

David Pecker, former National Enquirer publisher, testified to coordinating with Trump and Cohen earlier in 2016 to pay off former Playboy model Karen McDougal and bury her story of an alleged affair with Trump.

The G.L.O.A.T.

In his closing statements, Trump attorney Todd Blanche addressed the jury for nearly three hours, arguing that Trump made no such effort to influence the 2016 election by “unlawful means.”

Blanche told the jurors to put the idea of a conspiracy aside, emphasizing that the existence of a nondisclosure agreement is “not a crime.” Working with editors to buy sources’ silence and bury stories was routine, Blanche said.

“Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy,” he told the jurors, according to reporters at the courthouse.

While no hard contract existed between Trump and Cohen at the time, Blanche argued that the two had entered into an “oral” retainer agreement, and that Cohen was lying about how much work he was actually doing for Trump.

By the time Trump reached the Oval Office and personally signed nine of the 11 checks for Cohen, the then-president was too busy “running the country” to realize what he was signing, Blanche said.

As for the classification of the payments on the ledger, Blanche argued that the Trump Organization’s software featured limited dropdown menu categories, and that “legal expenses” was one of the options.

Blanche’s closing statements were largely dominated by his effort to persuade jurors that Cohen’s testimony could not be trusted.

“There is no way that you can find that President Trump knew about this payment at the time it was made without believing the words of Michael Cohen — period,” Blanche told the jurors, according to reporters in the courtroom.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 for lying to Congress.

Using another sports metaphor, Blanche told jurors that Cohen is the “G.L.O.A.T.”

“He’s literally the greatest liar of all time,” Blanche said.

He closed by urging the jurors to not send Trump “to prison” based on Cohen’s testimony.

Justice Juan Merchan admonished Blanche for mentioning prison, pointing out that a guilty verdict does not necessarily mean prison time. Merchan told the jurors to disregard that “improper” comment, according to reporters at the courthouse.

‘The only one who’s paid the price’

For just under five hours, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass led jurors through his closing argument, clocking the longest day of the trial.

Steinglass started off by telling them the prosecution only needs to prove the following: There were false business records used as part of the conspiracy and that Trump knew about them.

Steinglass reviewed earlier evidence presented to the jury — phone records, handwritten notes, recorded phone conversations and checks bearing Trump’s own signature. He also recalled the damning testimony of several Trump allies, including Pecker, the publisher.

“The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election — you don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit,” Steinglass said, according to reporters at the courthouse.

Steinglass leaned into Cohen’s seedy past, including his lying to Congress and his jail time for campaign finance violations related to hush money payments to women who alleged extramarital affairs with Trump.

These actions, he said, were taken on Trump’s behalf to defend and shield him; the irony, Steinglass said, is now they are being used against Cohen, again, to protect Trump.

Cohen transformed from a loyal Trump ally into a bitter foe who has published books titled “Disloyal” and “Revenge,” and produces a podcast called “Mea Culpa” on which he regularly lambastes Trump.

Cohen is “understandably angry that to date, he’s the only one who’s paid the price for his role in this conspiracy,” Blanche told the jurors, according to reporters, who noted Trump was shaking his head.

Steinglass attempted to humanize Cohen for the jurors, telling them one can “hardly blame” the former fixer — who now has a criminal record and no law license — for selling merchandise including t-shirts depicting Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit.

Steinglass also refuted the defense’s argument that Trump’s actions ahead of the 2016 were routine, describing the National Enquirer as “a covert arm” of the Trump campaign and “the very antithesis of a normal legitimate press function.”

“Everything Mr. Trump and his cohorts did in this case was cloaked in lies,” Steinglass said nearing the end of his closing statement. “The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead to the man who benefited the most, Donald Trump.”

Biden deploys DeNiro

On the sidewalk just outside the New York County Supreme Court, the Biden campaign deployed DeNiro, the voice of the latest campaign ad, and former U.S. Capitol Police officers Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone. The officers are campaigning for Biden in battleground states, the campaign said in a press release.

The campaign’s Michael Tyler, communications director, introduced the trio and said they were not in Manhattan because of the trial proceedings, but rather because that’s where the media is concentrated.

Loud protesters, whom DeNiro called “crazy,” competed with the speakers.

“Donald Trump has created this,” DeNiro said, pointing to the demonstrators. “He wants to sow total chaos, which he’s succeeding in some areas … I love this city, and I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy, not only this city, but the country, and eventually he could destroy the world.”

“These guys are the true heroes,” De Niro said, pointing to Dunn and Fanone behind him. “They stood and put their lives on the line for these low lives, for Trump.”

A protester then interrupted DeNiro to call the officers “traitors.”

“I don’t even know how to deal with you, my friend,” DeNiro snapped back during the livestreamed event.

Both Dunn and Fanone testified two years ago before lawmakers investigating the violent mob that overran the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress gathered for a joint session to certify Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Trump still falsely claims he won the election.

Trump’s campaign immediately followed with its own press conference.

Jason Miller, senior adviser to Trump, held up Tuesday’s copy of the New York Post bearing the headline “Nothing to Bragg About,” a play on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s name.

“Everybody knows this case is complete garbage,” Miller said. “President Trump did nothing wrong. This is all politics.”

On Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, the former president posted “BORING!” in all capital letters during a break in the Steinglass summation.

Late Monday, Trump posted in all caps a complaint about the order in which closing arguments would occur — a routine, well-established series of remarks in trials.

“WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT!” he wrote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/28/the-jury-now-will-decide-trumps-fate-in-hush-money-trial-after-lengthy-closing-arguments/feed/ 0
Trump declines witness stand as testimony in his first trial concludes https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/21/trump-declines-witness-stand-as-testimony-in-his-first-trial-concludes/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/21/trump-declines-witness-stand-as-testimony-in-his-first-trial-concludes/#respond Tue, 21 May 2024 18:33:25 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20288

Former President Donald Trump sits in court during the final day of testimony in his New York trial. Trump, the first former U.S. president to face trial on criminal charges, is accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments (Justin Lane-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The end of the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president is in sight as Donald Trump’s defense team rested its case Tuesday in Manhattan, where jurors have heard weeks of testimony from nearly two dozen witnesses about Trump’s alleged reimbursement of hush money meant to silence a porn star before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump did not take the stand after his team called just two witnesses.

The former president is accused of 34 felonies for falsifying business records. New York prosecutors allege that Trump covered up reimbursing his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen for paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels just before Election Day in 2016 to silence her about a tryst with Trump.

Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican candidate for president, denies the affair and maintains that he was paying Cohen for routine legal work.

The case will not resume until after the Memorial Day holiday, when closing arguments are expected.

A back channel to Trump

Trump’s defense team’s second and final witness, former federal prosecutor and longtime New York-based attorney Robert Costello, stepped down from the witness stand Tuesday morning. His brief but tense appearance began Monday afternoon and included an admonishment from Justice Juan Merchan for “contemptuous” conduct.

Costello testified to meeting a panicked and “suicidal” Cohen in April 2018 after the FBI had raided Cohen’s New York City hotel room as part of an investigation of his $130,000 payment to Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

After Merchan sustained a series of objections from the prosecution Monday, Costello exclaimed, “jeez” and “ridiculous” on the mic and at one point rolled his eyes at Merchan. Merchan cleared the courtroom, including the press, to address Costello and Trump’s defense team.

Costello’s testimony confirmed that he offered a back channel for Cohen to communicate with then-President Trump through Costello’s close contact and Trump’s former legal counsel Rudy Giuliani as Cohen was under investigation, according to reporters at the courthouse.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings.

During cross examination, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger showed a series of Costello’s emails in an attempt to convince jurors that Costello was actively working to assure Trump that Cohen would not turn against him during the federal investigation.

In one email between Costello and his law partner, he asks, “What should I say to this (expletive)? He is playing with the most powerful man on the planet,” according to reporters at the courthouse.

Hoffinger also established from Costello during her final series of questions that Cohen never officially retained him for legal help — reinforcing that Costello showed up in Cohen’s life only after the FBI raid.

Trump’s multiple indictments

Costello has been publicly critical of the hush money trial against Trump, and of Cohen, as recently as May 15, when he testified before the GOP-led U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

There, Costello told lawmakers that the cases brought against Trump during this election year are “politically motivated.”

Trump, who faces dozens of criminal charges in four separate cases, was indicted in New York in April 2023.

Three other criminal cases were also brought against Trump in 2023. They all remain on hold.

  • The former president was indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida in June 2023 on charges related to the mishandling of classified information. Federal District Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponed proceedings, making a trial before the November election unlikely.
  • Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., in August 2023. A four-count indictment accused him of knowingly spreading falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election results and scheming to overturn them. Trump claimed presidential immunity from the criminal charges in October 2023, which both the federal trial and appeals courts denied. Trump is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Weeks after the federal election interference indictment, Trump was indicted on state charges in Fulton County, Georgia, for allegedly interfering in the state’s 2020 presidential election results. The Georgia case has been mired in pretrial disputes over alleged misconduct by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Courtroom conditions

In the dim, tightly secured hallway just feet from the courtroom at the New York County Supreme Court, Trump again criticized the trial Monday and accused prosecutors of wanting to keep him off the campaign trail.

“We’re here an hour early today. I was supposed to be making a speech for political purposes. I’m not allowed to have anything to do with politics because I’m sitting in a very freezing cold courtroom for the last four weeks. It’s very unfair. They have no case, they have no crime,” he said before the news cameras that he’s stopped to speak in front of every day during the trial.

Trump told the cameras that outside the courtroom was like “Fort Knox.”

He complained that there are “more police than I’ve ever seen anywhere,” and said “there’s not a civilian within three blocks of the courthouse.”

That statement is false. States Newsroom attended the trial Monday and witnessed the scene outside the courthouse during the morning, mid-afternoon and late afternoon.

Just as dawn broke, people standing in the general-public line vying for the few public seats in the courtroom squabbled over who was in front of whom.

About an hour later, a woman with a bullhorn showed up in the adjacent Collect Pond Park to read the Bible and amplify contemporary Christian music played from her phone. A man paced the park holding a sign that read, “Trump 2 Terrified 2 Testify.”

Several people sat outside eating and talking at tables in Collect Pond Park during the 1 p.m. hour, as witnessed by reporters who left the courtroom after Merchan dismissed the jury for lunch.

By late afternoon, a small handful of protesters holding Trump flags and signs shouted that he was innocent.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/21/trump-declines-witness-stand-as-testimony-in-his-first-trial-concludes/feed/ 0
Prosecution rests in Trump hush money trial, after former fixer Cohen is grilled https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/20/prosecution-rests-in-trump-hush-money-trial-after-former-fixer-cohen-is-grilled/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/20/prosecution-rests-in-trump-hush-money-trial-after-former-fixer-cohen-is-grilled/#respond Tue, 21 May 2024 00:31:34 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20281

Former President Donald Trump appears in court during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 20, 2024, in New York City. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images).

NEW YORK — New York state prosecutors rested their case against Donald Trump Monday after four days of testimony from their key witness, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, who says the former president was well aware of a hush money cover-up. The defense paints Cohen as a liar.

The Manhattan criminal trial, the first ever for a former president, now in its sixth week, was poised to reach closing arguments as early as Tuesday. But New York Justice Juan Merchan indicated Monday that proceedings would stretch beyond Memorial Day.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche, in a lengthy, and at times slow and disjointed cross- examination Monday, continued wringing Cohen for proof that would convince jurors the former fixer cannot be trusted.

Cohen’s earlier testimony that Trump reimbursed him for paying a porn star to stay quiet before the 2016 presidential election is at the crux of the prosecution’s case.

Trump is charged with falsifying 11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries as routine legal expenses rather than reimbursement of the hush money, amounting to 34 felony counts.

Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains he never had a sexual relationship with adult film actress and director Stormy Daniels. She testified otherwise in excruciating and awkward detail in early May.

Monday’s proceedings were beset with objections and technology issues, and wrapped with tense testimony from the defense’s second witness, Robert Costello, Cohen’s legal counsel, who promised backdoor communication to Trump after Cohen was under the FBI’s thumb in 2018.

The day ended with a long shot, but expected, request from the defense to throw the case out. Merchan dismissed the court, saying he’d issue his ruling Tuesday. The defense is likely to rest its case then as well.

Closing arguments are expected after the holiday.

On a ‘journey’

Blanche began the day grilling Cohen on his previous business dealings, income and the money he’s made since breaking ties with the former president.

Cohen testified that he’s made millions of dollars on his books “Disloyal” and “Revenge,” and his podcast “Mea Culpa,” all of which sharply criticize the man from whom he used to seek praise, as he testified days earlier.

Prompted by Blanche, Cohen confirmed he’s mulling over a third book, has a television show in the works titled “The Fixer” and is considering a run for Congress because he has “the best name recognition” out there.

When Blanche suggested Cohen’s name recognition hinges on Trump, Cohen disagreed.

“I wouldn’t characterize it that way. My name recognition is because of the journey I’ve been on,” Cohen said.

“Well the journey you’ve been on … has included daily attacks on Trump,” Blanche responded.

Through the course of Blanche’s questioning, Cohen again acknowledged his previous crimes and also fessed up to stealing $30,000 from the Trump Organization when Trump lagged on paying a tech company to rig a CNBC poll of famous businessmen.

Minutes later, Blanche asked, “Do you have a financial interest in this case?”

“Yes, sir,” Cohen responded.

When Blanche pressed about whether a guilty verdict is Cohen’s preferred outcome, Cohen responded, “The answer is no. It’s better if he’s not (guilty) for me because it gives me more to talk about in the future.”

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger conducted her redirect at a tidy and speedy clip, leading Cohen through each of Blanche’s doubting lines of questioning to reaffirm for the jury Cohen’s testimony that Trump’s hand was behind the hush money reimbursements.

“They’ve asked you a lot of questions about how you’ve made money and (your) podcast… Putting aside financial matters, how has telling the truth affected your life?” Hoffinger asked.

“My entire life has been turned upside down as a direct result,” Cohen responded.

Before the prosecution rested its case, the defense lobbed a lengthy objection to a still frame of a C-SPAN video depicting Trump with his bodyguard Keith Schiller just before 8 p.m. on Oct. 24, 2016. The parties eventually agreed to admit it.

Evidence that Trump and Schiller were together that night looms large for Cohen’s claim that he spoke to both of them on the phone about paying off Daniels.

Trump’s support inside the courtroom

A steady flow of high-profile Republican supporters has shown up for the GOP’s presumed 2024 presidential nominee.

Monday’s supporters included Trump ally and attorney Alan Dershowitz; legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who himself is indicted in Arizona for trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election results; and Chuck Zito, an actor and one of the founders of New York City’s Hells Angels chapter in the 1980s.

Several Republican lawmakers, including vice presidential hopefuls, have flocked to Manhattan for the trial.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio and former GOP primary hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy attended May 13. Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama also made appearances last week, alongside Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird.

House Speaker Mike Johnson delivered remarks outside the courthouse May 14, slamming the “sham trial” and accusing New York prosecutors of only wanting to keep the former president off the campaign trail.

The Louisiana Republican cast Trump as a victim of a “travesty of justice.”

Nearly a dozen far-right Republican House members showed up Thursday, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida. Accompanying Gaetz were other right-wing House Freedom Caucus members: fellow Floridian Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Waltz; Eli Crane and Andy Biggs of Arizona; Lauren Boebert of Colorado; Ralph Norman of South Carolina; Diana Harshbarger and Andy Ogles of Tennessee; Mike Cloud of Texas; and caucus Chair Bob Good of Virginia.

Speaking on the sidewalk outside the courthouse, Gaetz described the charges as the “Mr. Potatohead doll of crimes,” accusing the prosecution of combining things “that did not belong together.”

Reps. Byron Donalds and Cory Mills of Florida attended earlier in the week.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/20/prosecution-rests-in-trump-hush-money-trial-after-former-fixer-cohen-is-grilled/feed/ 0
Advocates press U.S. House to act soon on compensation for nuclear testing victims https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/16/advocates-press-u-s-house-to-act-soon-on-compensation-for-nuclear-testing-victims/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/16/advocates-press-u-s-house-to-act-soon-on-compensation-for-nuclear-testing-victims/#respond Thu, 16 May 2024 20:41:11 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20225

New Mexico Democrats Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez, at the lectern, and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, and Guam’s Republican House delegate, James Moylan, along with advocates, on May 16, 2024, urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a vote to extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund. The fund expires in early June (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and advocates rallied outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday, urging House lawmakers to extend a fund for victims of U.S. nuclear testing that is set to expire in less than a month.

But critics say the program is too expensive and should be winding down, and it’s not clear if the House will act before the looming deadline.

New Mexico Democrats Sen. Ben Ray Luján and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez, and Guam’s Republican House delegate, James Moylan, among others, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana to bring the legislation to the floor.

“We stand with community members from across the United States, ranging from New Mexico, where they exploded the very first atomic bomb, to Guam to Missouri to Navajo to Utah to Colorado to people in Texas,” Fernandez said. “Communities that share a common bond of hardship, of death and of illness that came about because of the nation’s program to build and test atomic weapons.”

Legislation to expand and extend the fund already passed the Senate in early March in a bipartisan 69-30 vote.

Advocates and survivors have long said they were not warned prior to nuclear testing and were forgotten in the following decades as the consequences of nuclear fallout and waste affected their families.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund, often shortened to RECA, was established in 1990 and pays one-time sums to those who developed certain diseases after working on U.S. nuclear tests before 1963, or who lived in counties downwind from test explosion sites between January 1951 and October 1958, and the month of July in 1962, in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Uranium industry workers who were employed in 11 states from 1942 to 1971 who subsequently developed qualifying diseases also qualify.

The U.S. conducted more than 1,000 atomic weapons tests from 1945 to 1992 — the first at the Trinity Test site near Alamogordo, New Mexico, where the U.S. tested the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project prior to dropping the weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan at the end of World War II.

As of June 2022, the Justice Department has approved more than 36,000 RECA claims for more than $2.3 billion in benefits.

Unless the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund is extended, claims have to be postmarked by June 10, 2024, according to the Department of Justice.

‘Unknowing, unwilling, uncompensated victims’

A small crowd of activists wore “Save RECA” buttons and matching yellow t-shirts bearing the message “We are the unknowing, unwilling, uncompensated victims of the Manhattan Project and Cold War.”

A sign on the small lectern read, “Speaker Johnson Pass RECA Before We Die.”

Dawn Chapman, co-founder of the St. Louis, Missouri-based Just Moms STL, told the crowd that she and advocates have been in lawmakers’ offices pushing for RECA to be taken up on the House floor.

“Speaker Johnson’s staff has met as of this morning with two community groups, ours being one of them. We did meet with his office for an hour-and-a-half,” she said.

Under the Senate-passed bill, championed by Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, the fund would extend the program by six years and expand eligibility in several new locations, as well as add qualifying diseases.

As written and if passed, the fund would reach areas including ZIP codes in Alaska, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, where communities were impacted by radioactive waste dumping, uranium processing and other related activities surrounding the testing.

The bill would also expand downwind areas to include Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Guam and increase the one-time compensation sums to victims or surviving family to $100,000, up from $50,000 to $75,000.

Hawley was not able to attend the press conference due to a last-minute conflict, according to his fellow lawmakers. But in a statement posted to X Thursday, he said, “The good people poisoned by their government’s nuclear radiation have been put off long enough – it’s time to make this right.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a Johnson spokesperson said Wednesday that “The Speaker understands and appreciates Senator Hawley’s position and is working closely with interested members and stakeholders to chart a path forward for the House.”

Concerns over cost

Critics say the expansion would just be too costly.

An earlier iteration of the expansion, which received 61 votes in the Senate, was attached to last year’s massive annual defense authorization bill, but eventually lawmakers stripped it from the package.

According to an analysis by the watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the cost of the expansion was slated to reach $150 billion.

Hawley cut the cost in his revised legislation that garnered bipartisan Senate support in March. The new price tag went down to an estimated cost of $50 to $60 billion over 10 years after Hawley removed some qualifying diseases, cut the scope of medical benefits and shortened the extension from 19 years to six years, according to the CRFB.

Still, critics worry that the funds will be designated automatic mandatory spending, meaning funding couldn’t be adjusted from year to year by lawmakers like discretionary spending.

“Compensation may very well be warranted for individuals harmed by the government’s nuclear activities, but the substantial deficit impact of the legislation is concerning and unnecessary,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote in March. The organization also pointed out that the cost is not offset by other federal spending cuts.

“There is no reason why this well-known, long-term problem should not be addressed with careful consideration for both policy design and offsetting revenue increases or spending reductions,” the organization’s statement continued.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/16/advocates-press-u-s-house-to-act-soon-on-compensation-for-nuclear-testing-victims/feed/ 0
GOP politicians rush to Manhattan to line up behind Trump as hush money trial continues https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/14/gop-politicians-rush-to-manhattan-to-line-up-behind-trump-as-hush-money-trial-continues/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/14/gop-politicians-rush-to-manhattan-to-line-up-behind-trump-as-hush-money-trial-continues/#respond Tue, 14 May 2024 21:50:23 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20187

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., watch as former U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards the courtroom for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on Tuesday in New York City (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers are taking turns supporting former president and presumed 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in his trial in Manhattan criminal court, where he is charged with covering up payments intended to silence porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Dressed alike in navy blue suits and red ties, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, viewed as a 2024 vice presidential contender, former GOP primary hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy and U.S. Reps. Byron Donalds and Cory Mills of Florida filed behind Trump into the courtroom Tuesday morning, according to reporters present. Outside, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, conducted a press conference.

The entourage followed appearances Monday by U.S. Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio, another contender on Trump’s VP short list, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, as well as an appearance last week by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida.

Tuesday’s show of solidarity occurred as the prosecution’s star witness and former Trump fixer Michael Cohen took the stand for a second day to testify that Trump signed off on falsifying reimbursement to Cohen for $130,000 of his own money that Cohen paid to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

Jurors again saw checks signed by Trump, and heard from Cohen about instructions from Trump associates to submit fake invoices for “legal services rendered.” Cohen also described a February 2017 Oval Office meeting during which he discussed the reimbursement with Trump, according to reporters at the courthouse.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings.

Cohen followed high-profile and detailed testimony last week from adult film actress and director Daniels about her alleged sex affair with Trump in 2006, an event he denies.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts for each alleged falsified business record related to his repayment to Cohen — 11 invoices, 11 checks and 12 ledger entries.

A ‘sham’ to ‘keep him off of the campaign trail’

Out on the sidewalk, Johnson — the second in line for presidential succession after the vice president — told reporters he wanted “to call out what is a travesty of justice.”

With a sarcastic snicker and gesture toward the New York County Supreme Court location on Centre Street in Lower Manhattan, Johnson lamented that he had to speak to media outside “because the court won’t allow us to speak inside the building. That’s just one of the many things that are wrong here.”

It’s worth noting that surrogates routinely make comments outside courthouses.

Johnson summed up what he called a “sham trial” as a conspiracy to stymie Trump’s reelection campaign — despite recent New York Times/Siena College polls showing the former president leading in several swing states.

“This is the fifth week that President Trump has been in court for this sham of a trial,” Johnson said. “They are doing this intentionally to keep him here and keep him off of the campaign trail, and I think everybody in the country can see that for what it is.”

The trial meets weekdays, except Wednesdays.

Trump hit the campaign trail Saturday at a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, where he spoke for 90 minutes, criticizing the New York trial, repeating false claims that he won the 2020 presidential election, calling the “late, great” fictional cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter “a wonderful man,” and thanking the six U.S. Supreme Court justices — three of whom he appointed — for overturning Roe v. Wade.

‘Election interference’

Trump’s allies echoed Johnson’s earlier remarks in their own press conference later outside the courthouse, calling the trial a “scam” and “joke,” according to reporters at the event.

Ramaswamy reportedly likened the courtroom to a “Kafka novel” and called it “one of the most depressing places I have been in my life” and said the prosecution’s strategy is “to bore jurors into submission.”

In a video of the press conference he posted to X, the entrepreneur said the “justice system should be blind to politics” and accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of targeting Trump for political reasons.

Burgum characterized the trial as “election interference” in the 2024 race. Meanwhile, Trump’s critics say the trial is squarely about election interference that occurred in 2016.

Mills said “what was the Department of Justice, now the department of injustice, has continued to be utilized against the American people.”

The charges for which Trump is now on trial did not originate with the U.S. Department of Justice, but rather from a New York state grand jury investigation.

Trump’s two federal cases are in a holding pattern while, for one, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates over Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal charges that he schemed to subvert the 2020 presidential election results. The second, centered on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents following his presidency, has been put indefinitely on hold by federal district Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida.

The New York trial is expected to resume Thursday with further cross-examination of Cohen by Trump attorney Todd Blanche.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/14/gop-politicians-rush-to-manhattan-to-line-up-behind-trump-as-hush-money-trial-continues/feed/ 0
Star witness in Trump trial tells of plot to conceal porn star hush money payments https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/13/star-witness-in-trump-trial-tells-of-plot-to-conceal-porn-star-hush-money-payments/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/13/star-witness-in-trump-trial-tells-of-plot-to-conceal-porn-star-hush-money-payments/#respond Mon, 13 May 2024 23:30:58 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20169

U.S. Sens. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., listen as former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media outside Manhattan Criminal Court on May 13, 2024, during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s former fixer took the stand in a Manhattan courtroom Monday and told jurors that Trump was well aware of a scheme to hide the repayment of money intended to silence porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, told the jury that he used a home equity loan to pay $130,000 to Daniels’ lawyer, trusting a promise from Trump — then a Republican candidate for the presidency — that he’d be repaid.

The criminal trial, the first ever for a former president, centers on Trump’s reimbursement to Cohen and whether Trump illegally covered up the hush money as routine legal expenses, a felony in New York.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts for each alleged falsified business record related to his repayment to Cohen — 11 invoices, 11 checks and 12 ledger entries.

Cohen has already served time in prison for several federal crimes, including campaign finance violations in relation to the hush money deals with women who alleged sexual affairs with Trump. He was sentenced to three years in August 2019, but did not serve the entire sentence.

Cohen’s intense loyalty to Trump fizzled after the then-president distanced himself. The former fixer is now an outspoken Trump critic and has published books titled “Disloyal” and “Revenge,” and produces a podcast called “Mea Culpa.”

Cohen was called to the stand just days after Daniels, an adult film actress and director, described in lurid detail her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, the affair at the heart of the payments in question.

GOP senators show up as moral support 

Journalists at the courthouse reported that Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican presidential candidate, was sleeping at times during the trial Monday and shaking his head in response to some of Cohen’s testimony.

New York does not allow recording in the courtroom but provides public transcripts of the proceedings.

Trump was accompanied by Republican U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and J.D. Vance of Ohio, considered to be on the short list as Trump’s running mate. Republican U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, of New York, also joined the senators and spoke to media outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse.

Florida’s GOP Sen. Rick Scott made an appearance in the courtroom last week.

Prior to Monday’s proceedings, Trump delivered remarks to the press with Tuberville and Vance, among others, behind him.

Trump defended his payments to Cohen and blamed the charges on the Biden administration, despite the indictment coming down from the state of New York.

“A legal expense is a legal expense. It’s marked down in the book quote ‘legal expense,’” Trump told reporters, making air quotes with his hands.

“This all comes from Biden in the White House by the way,” he added.

Worries about ‘Access Hollywood’ tape

Cohen testified that he wanted to protect Trump from further alienating women voters just weeks before the November election, according to reporters at the courthouse.

A story about Trump’s alleged extramarital affair with Daniels reaching the public shortly after the revelation of the “Access Hollywood” tape would have been “catastrophic,” Cohen said.

The tape, published by the Washington Post just a month before the 2016 presidential election, showed Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush that fame allowed him to grab women’s genitals.

The tape caused upheaval in the Trump camp as Election Day approached, former Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks testified on May 3.

Prosecutors showed phone records, texts and emails of Cohen’s frantic attempts to quash stories of Trump’s alleged trysts with Daniels, and with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to journalists witnessing the testimony.

Cohen testified for several hours about communications with David Pecker, former National Enquirer publisher; Keith Davidson, the attorney for both Daniels and McDougal; and Hicks — all of whom took the stand during the trial’s preceding weeks.

Phone records revealed a five-minute call between Cohen and Trump on Oct. 28, 2016, at 11:48 a.m., during which Cohen told the jury that he assured Trump “that this matter is now completely under control and locked down,” according to reporters at the courthouse. The phone call occurred on the same date Cohen signed the agreement with Daniels and Davidson.

The jury also saw records of a wire transfer from Cohen’s shell company Essential Consultants to Davidson, the purpose of which was to “to pay Stormy Daniels to execute the non-disclosure agreement and to obtain the story, her life rights,” Cohen said, according to reporters at the courthouse.

‘Legal services rendered’

By late afternoon, Cohen began to testify about Trump’s direct knowledge of the plan for reimbursement. The plan was hatched with the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, who is currently in prison for crimes related to Trump’s civil fraud trial, which wrapped up in New York in February.

Jurors saw handwritten notes from Weisselberg detailing plans to get the money back to Cohen. This was the second time the jury has seen the notes, as Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization’s longtime controller, testified to them on May 6.

Just before the court broke for the day, Cohen testified that he and Weisselberg went to Trump’s 26th-floor office when Trump was president-elect and received Trump’s approval for the reimbursement plan, according to reporters in the courthouse. Cohen said Weisselberg had instructed him to submit a series of invoices over 12 months and to label them “legal services rendered.”

The prosecution’s direct questioning of Cohen is expected to resume Tuesday.

Weisselberg is serving time at Rikers Island after pleading guilty to committing perjury during Trump’s civil fraud trial. The former financial officer for Trump had already spent three months at Rikers for tax fraud offenses stemming from the same case.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/13/star-witness-in-trump-trial-tells-of-plot-to-conceal-porn-star-hush-money-payments/feed/ 0
U.S. Senate in FAA bill adds flights at Washington National, bucking local opponents https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/10/u-s-senate-in-faa-bill-adds-flights-at-washington-national-bucking-local-opponents/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/10/u-s-senate-in-faa-bill-adds-flights-at-washington-national-bucking-local-opponents/#respond Fri, 10 May 2024 19:46:20 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=20132

CAPTION: Terminal at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, the closest of three large international airports to, Washington, D.C. (Carol Highsmith/Library of Congress).

WASHINGTON — After hours of uncertainty Thursday, the U.S. Senate struck a deal to reauthorize several Federal Aviation Authority programs for the next five years, though Maryland and Virginia senators were vehemently opposed and lawmakers hoping to attach unrelated provisions lost out.

The bill heads to the House next week for final approval. Lawmakers from the lower chamber left Wednesday after approving a one-week extension for the FAA programs that expire Friday night. The Senate also passed the extension.

The late night vote, 88-4, drew resistance from the Democratic senators representing Maryland and Virginia. They held up speedier passage of the bill over objections to a provision that would allow more flights in and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, just over the Virginia border from Washington, D.C.

In a joint statement after the vote, Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia said the Senate “abdicated its responsibility to protect the safety of the 25 million people” who annually fly through Reagan airport, known as DCA.

The airport, a favorite for lawmakers as it’s closest to the Capitol, is limited by federal regulation on the number of “slots,” or flights that can take off and land per day.

“Just weeks after two aircraft nearly crashed into one another at DCA, this body refused to take up our commonsense amendment to remove a dangerous provision that would have crammed more flights onto the busiest runway in America,” the statement from Kaine and Warner continued, referring to an April 18 near-miss when two planes cleared to take off came within 400 feet of crashing.

The Virginia senators, as well as Sens. Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, held out for hours Thursday as they negotiated a vote for an amendment to strike or tighten a provision that would increase slots at DCA to five more landings and five more take-offs.

‘Over 200 member priorities’

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed to bring what the senators described as a “compromise” amendment to the floor Thursday evening. The amendment proposed giving the final say on slots to the Transportation secretary after considering delays and safety.

But GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the bill’s managers, objected, saying that the bill already “contains over 200 member priorities.”

Cruz, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, managed the bill with the committee’s chair, Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Cruz is a proponent of increasing slots at DCA, particularly for a direct flight from San Antonio.

Others support the increase as well: Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia had originally proposed adding 28 new slots per day. That idea was scrapped and replaced with Cruz’s amendment to allow five new daily flights in and out.

On the floor Thursday evening, Cruz pushed back on the safety argument, saying that “the FAA experts have recently clarified that this near miss (on April 18) had absolutely nothing to do with traffic on the runway.” He also blamed opposition on a lobbying effort from United Airlines, which operates a massive hub at Dulles International Airport in Virginia and wants to thwart competition.

Cruz said the final bill addresses safety issues by “ensuring we have sufficient air traffic controllers to monitor the traffic and protect safety.”

Late Thursday night after the bill’s passage, Cantwell took the floor to praise provisions that she said expand the aviation workforce, enhance pilot training and protect consumers.

Among its many provisions, the roughly 1,000-page legislation:

  • Directs the FAA to increase air traffic controller hiring targets;
  • Raises the commercial pilot retirement age to 67 from 65;
  • Prohibits mask-wearing and COVID-19 vaccine policies for passengers or employees;
  • Directs the FAA to update drone testing and operating rules;
  • Requires the Department of Transportation to create a seating policy to allow children to sit next to parents or guardians at no extra charge; and
  • Requires airlines to automatically refund customers after three hours of delay for domestic flights and after six hours for international flights.

“These statutory rights are a big win for consumers,” Cantwell said.

Last flight out of the airport

Many lawmakers view the FAA reauthorization bill as the last major vehicle to which they can attach their priorities before November elections and the close of the 118th Congress.

That opportunity disappeared Thursday when the legislation’s managers decided against allowing non-germane amendments to ride on the bill.

Among the proposals lawmakers were eyeing as additions was Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden’s bipartisan tax bill that would expand the child tax credit and revive corporate tax breaks. Another included Sen. Josh Hawley’s Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, which would reauthorize a fund for victims of U.S. radiation testing exposure. The fund expires June 7.

Hawley said Thursday afternoon that he wouldn’t object to the FAA bill, even if RECA wasn’t added on.

“I have no desire to tank the FAA reauthorization,” Hawley, a Missouri Republican, told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “I think we should have a reasonable process around it. But, if we’re not going to, we’re not going to.”

“At least we got automatic refunds for consumers out of this deal, which was good,” Hawley added, referring to his amendment with Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts that senators agreed to Tuesday.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/10/u-s-senate-in-faa-bill-adds-flights-at-washington-national-bucking-local-opponents/feed/ 0
UnitedHealth CEO savaged for failings in massive cyberattack that’s crippled health care https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/unitedhealth-ceo-savaged-for-failings-in-massive-cyberattack-thats-crippled-health-care/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/unitedhealth-ceo-savaged-for-failings-in-massive-cyberattack-thats-crippled-health-care/#respond Thu, 02 May 2024 11:15:33 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19986

UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty testified before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, about a cyberattack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary (Screenshot from committee webcast).

WASHINGTON — Capitol Hill lawmakers from both parties on Wednesday grilled UnitedHealth Group’s CEO over the largest-ever cyberattack on the U.S. health care industry, which has crippled payments to providers and pharmacies and left millions of patients clueless about whether their information is now on the dark web.

A Russia-linked cybercrime organization dubbed “BlackCat” infiltrated a vulnerable server in February belonging to Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of the massive Minnesota-based UnitedHealth. The hackers demanded ransom for stolen data.

UnitedHealth’s CEO Andrew Witty told the Senate Committee on Finance the decision to pay the $22 million ransom in Bitcoin “was mine (and) was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever had to make.”

“To all those impacted, let me be very clear: I am deeply sorry,” Witty said in his opening testimony.

The company warned in its latest update in late April that a preliminary ongoing investigation revealed compromised personal health and identifiable information that “could cover a substantial proportion of people in America.”

‘Mr. Witty owes Americans an explanation’

Witty’s apology did little to stop lawmakers from demanding that he answer for basic cybersecurity missteps, significant revenue losses and delays in notifying patients whether their personal information was among data stolen by the cyber criminals.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the committee’s chair, said “failure starts at the top.”

“Mr. Witty owes Americans an explanation for how a company of UHG’s size and importance failed to have multi-factor authentication on a server providing open door access to protected health information, why its recovery plans were so woefully inadequate and how long it will take to finally secure all of its systems,” the Oregon Democrat said.

UnitedHealth Group, which ranks among the nation’s largest companies, acquired Change Healthcare in a controversial 2022 deal that added to its behemoth footprint in the American health care industry.

Change Healthcare is an information superhighway for payments, requests for insurers to authorize care and roughly a third of Americans’ medical records. It processes 14 billion “clinical, financial and operational transactions annually,” according to the company.

Witty told lawmakers that with the Change purchase came the company’s “legacy technology” that UnitedHealth has been in the process of upgrading.

Both Wyden and the committee’s ranking member, Mike Crapo of Idaho, criticized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for not playing a larger role after the attack.

Wyden panned the agency for not conducting “a proactive cybersecurity audit in seven years.”

HHS, which has published recommended cybersecurity standards for the health care industry, did not respond to a request for comment. It released a statement and guidance about the cyberattack on March 5.

That wasn’t soon enough, Crapo said, and “the administration’s delay exacerbated an already uncertain landscape, leaving providers and patients with reasonable concerns about access to essential medical services and life-saving drugs.”

Not a ‘rosy’ picture

The cybercriminals that attacked Change Healthcare allegedly accessed a server using stolen credentials.

The server did not have multi-factor authentication — a widely used two-step log-in process — and hackers were in the system for nine days before being detected, Witty confirmed for the committee.

Wyden said the attack could have been stopped by using “cybersecurity 101.”

“I don’t believe there are any excuses for that,” Wyden said.

The company immediately contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and disconnected Change from the rest of its network after discovering the breach, Witty said.

Cutting off the system halted billing, insurance authorizations and other activities for weeks, costing providers more than $100 million a day, according to the American Medical Association.

UnitedHealth maintains medical claims are flowing again at “near normal” levels, and payment processing has reached 86% of pre-incident levels “and is increasing as additional functionality is restored,” according to Witty’s submitted written testimony.

Witty told lawmakers that as of Friday the company had issued $6.5 billion in payments and no-interest loans to medical providers.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn said her office has been inundated with calls about the Change attack. The reality patients and providers are describing “is wildly different from the rosy picture that you have painted,” she said.

The Tennessee Republican said she’s hearing from hospitals and doctors who are facing weeks of backlogged claims and payments.

“Here’s a good ‘for instance’ for you: a small, independent, private hospital in West Tennessee. They have diligently submitted all of their claims, and they are burdened with a backlog of Medicare claims that is equivalent to 30 days revenue, and they’re waiting for these things to be transmitted to Medicare,” Blackburn said.

“This is all because of the missteps you all have had.”

Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, asked Witty for a “target time when everyone will be made completely whole.”

“I would hope that that’s in the next month or six weeks,” Witty said.

Patient data 

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina held up the book “Hacking for Dummies,” which he said he’s used as a resource on various Senate committees, and told Witty “this is basic stuff.”

“Your entire enterprise is based on the movement and exchange of data,” Tillis, a Republican, said during his questioning. “That’s how you create value. … When you have a breach, it’s gotta be your problem, not my problem. So everything that you do to keep those folks whole for any damage in the brief is just a function of doing business. Do you agree with that?”

“I do sir,” Witty responded. “And we’ve (leaned) in to take full responsibility on notification, and we are waiting for that notification. We’ve already stood up credit protection, identity theft protection, and they can reach us through a 1-800 number and through our cyber support.”

The company has provided a call center at 1-866-262-5342 and a website changecybersupport.com.

Witty told Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto that the timeline for notifying providers and patients whether their data has been breached — as required by federal and state law — will take “several weeks.”

“You’ve been saying several more weeks since what, this attack was how long ago, 69 days ago?” asked Cortez-Masto, a Nevada Democrat.

“Yes, and thank you for the question. We only were able to start this process about a month after the attack when we got the dataset back and were able to start to interrogate it, a very complex process,” Witty replied.

Protesters briefly stood after the hearing adjourned and chanted “Andrew Witty, you can’t hide. We can see your greedy side.”

Witty also testified before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Wednesday.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on the investigation into the attack.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/unitedhealth-ceo-savaged-for-failings-in-massive-cyberattack-thats-crippled-health-care/feed/ 0
Yellen touts success of IRS pilot program that allowed direct free filing of tax returns https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/yellen-touts-success-of-irs-pilot-program-that-allowed-direct-free-filing-of-tax-returns/ Wed, 01 May 2024 14:20:02 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=19965

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen speaks to the Economic Club of Chicago luncheon on Jan. 25, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. Yellen used the address to highlight the state of the U.S. economy (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Internal Revenue Service saw a successful tax filing season, providing high levels of customer service, enforcing collection from the wealthy and launching a free filing option for taxpayers, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told tax writers on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

The agency “met or exceeded” goals for the filing season and “successfully” piloted IRS Direct File — the first time the government has provided a free public option for eligible taxpayers to file federal returns directly to the IRS, Yellen said.

“The modernization of the Internal Revenue Service, made possible by the (Inflation Reduction Act) and discretionary appropriations, has enabled us to combat tax evasion by the wealthiest Americans that costs our country over $150 billion a year. And it’s made it easier for taxpayers to file their taxes and get the credits they’re owed,” Yellen told the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Just over 140,800 taxpayers in a dozen states filed returns that were successfully accepted via the IRS Direct File pilot program, according to the agency. The completed returns were just a fraction of the 19 million taxpayers whose tax situations qualified them for the program.

The agency launched IRS Direct File, which was open to earners with simple W-2 income and limited deductions and credits, in early March and closed it April 21.

Roughly 3.3 million people checked their eligibility for the program, and 423,450 actually logged in, according to the agency.

The states leading in returns filed included California with 33,328, Texas with 29,099, Florida with 20,840, New York with 14,144 and Washington with 13,954. Exact figures for other states in the pilot program were not provided by the IRS, but they included Arizona, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.

The agency’s survey of more than 11,000 Direct File users found that 90% of respondents ranked the experience on both the platform and with customer service as “excellent” or “above average.”

The IRS has not yet announced whether it will continue or expand the pilot program next year.

Opposition and state filing

IRS Direct File faced fierce opposition from Republicans who warned the program would steal business from the tax preparation industry.

Chief also among the critics were state officials who said that states could lose revenue because taxpayers would be confused about also filing state returns — something they’re automatically prompted to do with a tax preparer or commercial tax prep software.

But supporters of free public tax filing are pointing to a “seamless” experience for Direct File users in Arizona and New York, who were able to import data from their federal to state return and file both for free.

The nonprofit Code for America built FileYourStateTaxes, a separate tool that integrated the processes.

Upon finishing their federal return with IRS Direct File, taxpayers in Arizona and New York — two of the pilot program states — were led straight to FileYourStateTaxes, where they could create an account and transfer the data onto their state return with one click, according to the nonprofit.

“Folks who have raised the question of ‘How will state filing work in Direct File?’ — it was a valid question to be raising. I think we’ve shown here that there’s a really good answer,” said Gabriel Zucker, the nonprofit’s interim director for tax policy and partnerships.

Code for America reported follow-up survey results Tuesday that showed 96% of the tool’s users were “very satisfied” or “satisfied,” while 95% found the data transfer “seamless and quick.”

The nonprofit reported that 90% of people in Arizona and New York who used IRS Direct File went on to use FileYourStateTaxes, and 98% of those returns were accepted.

Code for America did not provide the exact number of filers in either state.

Several states included in the IRS Direct File pilot do not collect state income taxes.

Other state governments already offer free public electronic filing for state income tax returns, including California and Massachusetts.

Fight over Trump tax breaks

Yellen’s testimony before U.S. House tax writers occurred against the backdrop of a looming tax fight in Congress as a Trump-era tax law nears its expiration at the end of 2025.

President Joe Biden told the North America’s Building Trades Unions last week that the 2017 law will be “expired and dead forever if I’m reelected.”

Biden and former President Donald Trump are debating their dueling tax policies as the 2024 presidential election nears.

Trump continues to vow he would raise tariffs, to more than 10%, on imports from China and Mexico. Economists have warned the increase will amount to a tax on American consumers, but Trump denies that charge.

Biden has repeatedly promised to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, to expand the child tax credit and to institute a minimum tax for billionaires.

Biden and Democrats authorized an additional $80 billion to modernize the IRS in 2022’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, including $15 million earmarked for the agency to explore creating Direct File.

Defunding the IRS became a rallying cry for Republicans after the funding was approved.

The GOP clawed back $20 billion of the funding in a budget deal with Democrats less than two years later.

]]>
Parents tote toddlers to D.C. to press for expanded child tax credit, child care funds https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/01/parents-tote-toddlers-to-d-c-to-press-for-expanded-child-tax-credit-child-care-funds/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/01/parents-tote-toddlers-to-d-c-to-press-for-expanded-child-tax-credit-child-care-funds/#respond Wed, 01 May 2024 10:50:53 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19963

Sabrina Donnellan of Girdwood, Alaska, sits with her 13-month-old, Blakely, on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., and talks with Candace Winkler, ZERO TO THREE’s chief development and strategy officer, at the eighth annual “Strolling Thunder,” a child and family issues advocacy event on April 30, 2024, organized by the nonprofit ZERO TO THREE (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Families gathered outside the U.S. Capitol Tuesday to “make a fuss for babies,” who they believe are being left behind by lawmakers who direct only a fraction of U.S. resources to young children.

Parents and kids representing 50 states and the District of Columbia convened for the eighth annual “Strolling Thunder.” Moms and dads pushing strollers decked out in state license plates rallied on the Capitol’s East Lawn to lobby lawmakers to fund child care, establish national paid family leave, and permanently expand the child tax credit.

Matthew Melmed, executive director of ZERO TO THREE, the organization behind the event, rallied parents to tell their representatives that the 11 million babies in the U.S. “make up 3.4% of our population, but 100% of our future.”

“You’re here with the pork producers and the insurance lobby and the pharmaceutical industry. Members of Congress don’t normally see real people, and they rarely see babies and toddlers, particularly babies and toddlers who need to have their diapers changed on their desks. And that’s what I encourage you to do if you need to have that happen,” Melmed told the crowd.

The nonprofit ZERO TO THREE bases its advocacy on health and developmental research findings in infants up to age 3, the years the group describes as “the most important for lifelong mental health and well-being.”

Melmed praised top Democratic appropriators Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut for achieving a $1 billion increase for child care block grants and Head Start in this year’s government funding bills.

DeLauro, who spoke to the crowd, said “families deserve better.”

“The cost of living has increased year after year, and more and more Americans simply do not get paid enough to live on, let alone to raise a family,” the Connecticut lawmaker said, promising to advocate for the reinstatement of a fully refundable child tax credit.

‘Diapers, child care, formula’

Candace Winkler, a former Alaska resident and current ZERO TO THREE leader, sat on the Capitol lawn next to Sabrina Donnellan who traveled to D.C. from Girdwood, Alaska, with her 13-month-old Blakely to advocate for lower child care costs and paid family leave.

Winkler, the organization’s chief development and strategy officer, said the group of families would divide up in the halls of Congress Tuesday to meet with their representatives about six key policy issues, including permanently expanding the child tax credit to pandemic levels.

“We’ve seen that time and time again that families are using those resources for diapers, child care, formula and things their babies and their family needs. And it’s really critical for their success,” WInkler said.

The current child tax credit is $2,000 a year after tax liability, but the amount a parent could receive per child under 17 in a refund check is capped at $1,600 in 2023. The credit phases in at 15% on every dollar after earnings of $2,500.

As the U.S. was digging out from under the COVID-19 economic crisis, Congress approved a one-year expansion of the tax credit to $3,000 per child under age 18, and $3,600 for those under age 6 — including for families who made $0 in income. Lawmakers made the entire amount refundable, and a portion of it was sent to families in monthly installments.

Advocates hailed the research findings that showed the temporary move was a game changer for lifting children from poverty in the U.S.

A current bipartisan proposal, widely supported by U.S. House lawmakers, to temporarily expand the child tax credit until 2025 — though not to pandemic levels — is currently stalled by U.S. Senate Republicans who liken aspects of the bill to a welfare program.

The proposal, as passed by the House, would increase the credit’s refundable portion to $1,800 in 2023, $1,900 in 2024 and $2,000 in 2025. The legislation would also increase the phase-in rate to 15% per child, simultaneously — in other words, 30% for a family with two children, 45% for a family with three, and so on.

Credit card debt for child care

Cruz Bueno, a parent from Rhode Island, shared her story of racking up credit card debt to enroll her 11-month-old Rosie in child care, along with her 2-year-old sister Amalia.

“Putting Rosie into daycare means that we must put a halt to our dream of buying a home,” said Bueno, an economist who lives in Warwick with her husband, Xhuljan Meta.

“One of the stipulations of our mortgage pre-approval was to keep our credit card balances low. Even so, we remain hopeful that one day in the not-so-distant future we will be able to buy a home to raise our girls and pass on wealth to them,” she said.

When asked about the Strolling Thunder event at Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled House Republican press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said, “There’s lots of ideas out there. What we stand for, what our party stands for, is support of families. We support infants and children, and there’s an appropriate role to play in that.”

“The devil’s always in the details on legislation, so I’m not sure exactly what they’re proposing, but all of us are looking at those avenues. We want to support families. That’s good public policy,” Johnson said. “In our view, the best way often for the government to do that is to step back and allow the local and state officials to handle their business at that local level.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik, House Republican Conference Chair, said the GOP is “proud to be a pro-family conference.”

“There are many of our members who have proposed innovative solutions — one is rural child care. Home-based child care, that’s an issue I’ve worked with many of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee,” Stefanik, of New York, said. “But the economy, the border, crime, these issues, these crises caused by Joe Biden, they impact every family.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/01/parents-tote-toddlers-to-d-c-to-press-for-expanded-child-tax-credit-child-care-funds/feed/ 0
U.S. Supreme Court floats return to trial court for Trump in presidential immunity case https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-floats-return-to-trial-court-for-trump-in-presidential-immunity-case/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-floats-return-to-trial-court-for-trump-in-presidential-immunity-case/#respond Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:28:46 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19913

CAPTION: Dozens of anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, while the justices heard arguments about whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution on criminal charges related to his actions while in office (Jane Norman/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of former President Donald Trump’s argument he is immune from criminal charges that he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

But conservatives who dominate the court appeared open to returning key questions to a trial court, possibly delaying Trump’s prosecution beyond the November election — and essentially assisting the former president as he fights legal challenges on multiple fronts.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has argued in a federal trial court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that his actions following the 2020 election and leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, were “official acts” conducted while still in office and therefore are not subject to criminal prosecution.

While court precedent establishes that U.S. presidents are immune to civil damages for their official acts, and to criminal prosecution while in office, the justices now must decide the unanswered question of whether former presidents are absolutely immune from criminal law.

At oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. United States, much of the discussion centered on what should be considered an official presidential act.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, of St. Louis, argued that nearly everything a president does in office — including hypotheticals about ordering a military coup or assassinating a political rival — could be considered official acts.

While much of the court appeared skeptical of that broad view of official acts, several justices on the conservative wing asked about having the trial court determine what acts should be considered official. They also suggested prosecutors could drop sections of the four-count indictment against Trump that dealt with official acts.

The court’s three liberal justices voiced serious concerns about Trump’s immunity argument, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondering aloud if the court accepting a broad view of criminal immunity for the president would make the Oval Office “the seat of criminal activity.”

The case is one of four in state and federal courts in which criminal charges have been made against Trump. On Thursday, he was in a New York state courtroom where he faces charges in an ongoing hush-money trial; the judge there did not allow him to attend the Supreme Court arguments.

Conservative justices asked if they could avoid the constitutional question by having the trial court, presided over by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, determine which parts of the allegations could be considered official or unofficial acts.

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors have indicated that prosecuting only Trump’s private conduct would be sufficient, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

“The normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked, would be for us to remand if we decided that there were some official acts immunity, and to let that be sorted out below,” Barrett said, referring to a process in which a case is sent back to a lower court. “It is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct.”

‘Absolute immunity’

D. John Sauer, former solicitor general of Missouri, represented Donald Trump before an appeals court panel on Jan. 9, 2024. Sauer is pictured here testifying during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on July 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

Sauer argued, as he has for months, for “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for presidents acting in their official capacity.

No president who has not been impeached and removed from office can be prosecuted for official actions, Sauer said, broadly interpreting the meaning of official acts.

Liberal justices questioned Sauer about how far his definition of official acts would stretch. Trump’s attorney was reluctant to list any exceptions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a hypothetical that arose in a lower court: Would it be an official act for the president to order the assassination of a political rival?

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer answered.

He also answered Justice Elena Kagan that it could be an official act for a president to order a military coup, though Sauer said “it would depend on the circumstances.”

Michael R. Dreeben, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued that Trump’s broad view of presidential immunity would break a fundamental element of U.S. democracy, that no one is above the law.

“His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power,” Dreeben said.

Jackson, questioning Sauer, appeared to agree with that argument.

She said Sauer appeared worried that the president would be “chilled” by potential criminal prosecution, but she said there would be “a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled.”

“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said.

‘A special, peculiarly precarious position’

But other members of the court appeared more amenable to Sauer’s argument that subjecting presidents to criminal prosecution would constrain them.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, asked Dreeben about Trump’s argument that a president’s duties require a broad view of immunity.

The president has to make difficult decisions, sometimes in areas of law that are unsettled, Alito said.

“I understand you to say, ‘If he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake, he’s subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else,’” Alito said. “You don’t think he’s in a special, peculiarly precarious position?”

Dreeben answered that the president has access to highly qualified legal advice and that making a mistake is not what generally leads to criminal prosecution.

He also noted that the allegations against Trump involve him going beyond his powers as president to interfere with the certification of an election, which is not a presidential power in the Constitution.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-floats-return-to-trial-court-for-trump-in-presidential-immunity-case/feed/ 0
Trump’s claims of presidential immunity to be probed at U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/24/trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity-to-be-probed-at-u-s-supreme-court-on-thursday/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/24/trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity-to-be-probed-at-u-s-supreme-court-on-thursday/#respond Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:15:13 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19882

Former President Donald Trump boards his plane at Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, following an arraignment in Washington, D.C. federal court on Aug. 3, 2023. Trump pleaded not guilty to four felony criminal charges during his arraignment this afternoon after being indicted for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday over former President Donald Trump’s pursuit of absolute immunity from criminal charges alleging that he schemed and knowingly fed lies to subvert the 2020 presidential election, eventually leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

In the final argument of this term, the justices must consider whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges, and depending on the timing of their decision, whether a trial can move forward before November’s presidential election.

The former president and presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee is seeking immunity from charges that include conspiracy to defraud the United States for spreading “prolific lies about election fraud,” working with co-conspirators to develop fake electors in seven states and pressuring his vice president, Mike Pence, to alter election results using the slates of fake electors.

Oral arguments are at 10 a.m. Eastern in the Supreme Court chamber Thursday, and audio will be live-streamed on the Supreme Court website. Audio and a transcript also will be available later on the site.

Here’s a guide to the complicated path from Trump’s false election fraud claims that inflamed his supporters to his immunity claim reaching the nation’s highest court this week:

When was Trump charged?

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Trump on Aug. 1, 2023.

The 45-page indictment outlined four felony criminal charges against the former president as a result of an investigation of his actions following the November 2020 presidential election. In addition to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., they include:

  • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
  • Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
  • Conspiracy against rights

Trump’s “pervasive and destabilizing lies” about his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of a presidential election,” prosecutors wrote.

The indictment details Trump’s alleged schemes with co-conspirators to falsify election results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The indictment also describes a steady pressure campaign to “enlist” Pence to alter the outcome during his ceremonial role in certifying presidential election results during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, prior to Inauguration Day.

Among the multiple phone calls and conversations detailed in the indictment is Trump’s outreach to Pence on both Christmas and New Year’s Day to send holiday greetings, during which he “berated” the vice president as “too honest” for refusing to join the scheme.

Why hasn’t the case gone to trial?

Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith said upon the indictment’s release that he would seek a speedy trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The case began to move, and Trump pleaded not guilty on Aug. 3, 2023 at his arraignment before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who waived Trump’s appearance at the first hearing on Aug. 28, 2023, set jury selection to begin on March 4 despite protests from Trump’s lawyers who asked to delay the trial until January 2026.

However, March has come and gone, and proceedings have been on hold as Trump and his legal team steadily marched his immunity challenge to the high court and hopscotched between the several other criminal and civil cases against him.

Trump, who is currently on trial for criminal charges in New York, will not attend Thursday’s Supreme Court arguments. The state judge has mandated Trump to be in the Manhattan courtroom every day throughout the proceedings.

Trump’s motion to dismiss his federal election interference case, which he filed in October 2023 and based on the argument of presidential immunity, was denied by Chutkan in early December.

Trump appealed the ruling on Dec. 7, 2023, and Smith quickly asked the Supreme Court justices to leapfrog the appellate court and promptly rule on the question of presidential immunity. The justices denied Smith’s request.

On Jan. 9, a three-judge panel — made up of one former President George W. Bush appointee and two Biden picks — grilled Trump’s lawyer over claims that former and sitting presidents should be immune from criminal prosecution.

The oral arguments notably featured a line of questioning from Judge Florence Y. Pan on whether a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival with impunity.

In early February, the federal appeals court turned down Trump’s immunity argument.

The former president then asked the Supreme Court to pause his federal trial while he requested a hearing before a full panel of appeals judges.

But the justices decided on Feb. 28 that they would be the final arbiters and scheduled arguments for the last week of the term.

Trump’s federal trial would meanwhile remain on hold.

What do the critics say about the delay?

Critics contend that Trump’s quest for immunity has been an exercise in delaying his trial until after the November 2024 presidential election.

“It’s much more about that than this underlying immunity claim,” said Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University and former senior staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Now, we’ve had to delay the federal trial for a couple of months because they’re taking up this claim,” Joscelyn told States Newsroom, as he lambasted the legal community for “having these navel-gazing arguments for hours on end over stuff that is obviously nonsense.”

“There’s no way a president, current or former president, can be immune from charges that stem from that president seeking to overturn the will of the American people in a democratically held election, and that’s what these charges are all about,” said Joscelyn, one of the principal authors of the select committee’s Jan. 6 report. “Nothing is more unconstitutional.”

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, who was vice chair of the Jan. 6 select committee, published an op-ed in the New York Times Monday urging the justices to swiftly rule on the immunity question.

“If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account,” the Wyoming Republican wrote.

What arguments will Supreme Court justices hear?

Trump and supporters of the presidential immunity argument paint a doomsday picture of a hamstrung executive office should the justices decide that a president can be held criminally accountable.

The former president maintains that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended a strong executive to face virtually no liability from the judicial branch, and that a “234-year unbroken tradition” of not prosecuting presidents bolsters his case.

“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in March.

They wrote later in the brief: “Even if some level of Presidential malfeasance, not present in this case at all, were to escape punishment, that risk is inherent in the Constitution’s design.”

Trump’s lawyers argue that the only exception that makes a president vulnerable to criminal prosecution is if he or she is first impeached and convicted.

The former president was impeached by the U.S. House twice — the second time for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6. He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate on both occasions.

In his response, special counsel Smith characterized Trump’s arguments as “radical” and akin to the monarchy rule that the U.S. broke away from at its birth.

“If petitioner were correct that the former President has permanent immunity from federal criminal prosecution except after his impeachment and Senate conviction — which has never happened — it would upset the separation of powers and usher in a regime that would have been anathema to the Framers,” Smith wrote.

Impeachment, Smith wrote, is a “political remedy” and “not intended to provide accountability under the ordinary course of the law.”

History also illustrates that presidents have presumed they must follow the law, the special counsel argued.

Following the Watergate scandal, former President Richard Nixon’s “acceptance of a pardon implied his and President Ford’s recognition that a former President was subject to prosecution,” Smith wrote.

Who is weighing in on the case?

The case has attracted nearly 50 friend-of-the-court filings, otherwise known as amici briefs.

Like supporters of the immunity argument, opponents similarly envision a bleak future for the presidency, and the nation, if the ruling doesn’t go their way.

Twenty-six former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, lawmakers and others, who were either elected Republicans or served during GOP administrations, warned of “terrifying possibilities” that would endanger the nation’s hallmark peaceful transfers of power.

“Under former President Trump’s view of absolute immunity, future first-term Presidents would be encouraged to violate federal criminal statutes by employing the military and armed federal agents to remain in power,” they wrote.

Several retired four-star generals also argued that absolute immunity for a commander-in-chief would result in “​​irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations” if he or she ordered generals to direct troops unlawfully.

“Immunizing the Commander-in-Chief from criminal prosecution, as Petitioner argues for here, would fly in the face of that duty, creating the likelihood that service members will be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress,” the generals wrote.

Filings in support of the former president insist the criminal charges against Trump are “partisan” and warn of opening the proverbial “floodgates” of politically motivated cases against presidents if immunity is not granted.

Several state attorneys general accused the Department of Justice of timing the case with Trump’s 2024 presidential run.

The “lengthy delay in bringing charges … followed by an unexplained rush to take him to trial, gives credence to the concern that factional interests can drive criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President for his official acts,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote in a brief co-signed by 17 other Republican attorneys general.

They include: Ashley Moody of Florida, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Theodore E. Rokita of Indiana, Brenna Bird of Iowa, Kris Kobach of Kansas, Liz Murrill of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Andrew Bailey of Missouri, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Drew Wrigley of North Dakota, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas, Sean D. Reyes of Utah and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia.

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican and chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, contends that the Constitution already dictates a process of accountability for the president through impeachment.

The fact that the Senate acquitted Trump over his actions surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, “should have ended the matter,” Daines and the NRSC wrote.

“Not every impeachment inquiry will result in the punishment that a President’s political opponents believe he deserves, but that is not a reason for prosecutors and the courts to go hunting for an alternative.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/24/trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity-to-be-probed-at-u-s-supreme-court-on-thursday/feed/ 0
NY prosecutor ties Trump hush money payments to campaign as criminal trial kicks off https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/22/ny-prosecutor-ties-trump-hush-money-payments-to-campaign-as-criminal-trial-kicks-off/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/22/ny-prosecutor-ties-trump-hush-money-payments-to-campaign-as-criminal-trial-kicks-off/#respond Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:20:45 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19852

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he arrives with his attorney Todd Blanche, right, in court for opening statements in his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 22, 2024, in New York City. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial (Yuki Iwamura-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Oral arguments in former President Donald Trump’s historic case in New York began Monday in a Manhattan courtroom where jurors will be tasked with deciding whether deceptive hush money payments to hide an affair amount to a criminal conviction.

The first-ever criminal trial of an ex-U.S. president centers on Trump’s alleged falsified business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, with whom he denies he had a sexual relationship.

Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo told jurors Monday that Trump’s payments to Daniels in 2016, which he reimbursed to his former lawyer Michael Cohen as legal expenses, were meant to “influence the presidential election,” according to reporters at the courthouse.

“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and fraud. The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election, then he covered up that conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over, and over, and over again,” Colangelo argued, according to journalists present.

The New York court does not permit audio or video recording but will provide daily transcripts on its website.

Calling him ‘President Trump’

Defense attorney Todd Blanche argued for Trump, whom he said will be referred to as “President Trump” throughout the trial “out of respect” and because he “earned” the title.

Blanche told the jurors “President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney should never have brought this case.”

Claiming that Trump was unaware of the nuances of the payments, Blanche argued, “You’ll learn that President Trump had nothing to do with any of the 34 pieces of paper … except he signed the checks.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree for each reimbursement payment to Cohen.

Blanche also told the jurors to dismiss the prosecution’s election interference theory: “I have a spoiler alert: there’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election, it’s called democracy,” he said, according to reporters in the courthouse.

Trump raised his fist and did not take questions as he left the courtroom for a brief recess after opening statements, according to reporters.

National Enquirer exec called

The prosecution called David Pecker, former chairman of the tabloid National Enquirer’s parent company, as its first witness Monday. Pecker was involved in the scheme with Cohen to identify and purchase, nicknamed “catch and kill,” damaging stories about Trump ahead of the 2016 election.

The prosecution is also expected to call Cohen, who has already served prison time in relation to the payments, and Hope Hicks, a former Trump campaign press secretary.

The trial could last for longer than a month, possibly two, keeping the presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee off the campaign trail four days a week.

The New York proceeding also overlaps with Trump’s immunity arguments scheduled for Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The former president claims he enjoys absolute criminal immunity for his actions while in office, including immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s charges that he allegedly schemed to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

New York Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump’s request to attend the Supreme Court arguments, saying he must be present at his Manhattan trial, according to media reports.

In early morning posts to his social media platform Truth Social, Trump blamed President Joe Biden — despite the case being at the state level — and repeated his refrain that the trial is politically motivated. He wrote, partially in all caps, that he will now be “STUCK in a courtroom, and not be allowed to campaign for President of the United States!”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/22/ny-prosecutor-ties-trump-hush-money-payments-to-campaign-as-criminal-trial-kicks-off/feed/ 0
National privacy standard eyed by Congress for data harvested by big tech companies https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/18/national-privacy-standard-eyed-by-congress-for-data-harvested-by-big-tech-companies/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/18/national-privacy-standard-eyed-by-congress-for-data-harvested-by-big-tech-companies/#respond Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:00:00 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19811

(Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House members tasked with addressing what happens to loads of user data collected by big tech companies see a “long overdue” opportunity for a national privacy standard, particularly for children and teens.

Lawmakers on a subpanel of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce met Wednesday to hear from advocates and online safety experts on a series of data privacy bills that are drawing rare bipartisan and bicameral support.

The 10 bills discussed by six witnesses and members of the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data and Commerce would regulate how data is collected and stored, allow users to opt out of algorithms, and ensure safeguards for minors on the internet.

The hearing came on the heels of widespread bipartisan support for a bill that would force the popular video platform TikTok to split from its Chinese parent company ByteDance. The legislation passed the House in March in a 352-65 vote.

If you are having thoughts of suicide, contact 988. For resources regarding eating disorders, visit nationaleatingdisorders.org/get-help/.

“Today we find ourselves at a crossroads,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “We can either continue down the dangerous path we’re on, letting companies and bad actors continue to collect massive amounts of data unchecked, or we can give people the right  to control their information online.”

Washington state lawmakers unite

The Washington Republican’s discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act was a focus of the Wednesday hearing.

The bipartisan, bicameral proposal, introduced alongside Senate Committee on Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, would shrink the amount of data companies can collect, regulate data brokers, allow users to access their own data and request deletion, and empower the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to enforce the policies.

Placing the burden on consumers to read “notice and consent” privacy agreements “simply does not work,” said Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey.

“By contrast, data minimization limits the amount of personal information entities collect, process, retain and transfer to only what is necessary to provide the products and services being requested by the consumer,” Pallone said, praising provisions in the American Privacy Rights Act.

Rodgers said the “foundational” legislation would protect minors and establish a national standard to quash a “modern form of digital tyranny where a handful of companies and bad actors are exploiting our personal information, monetizing it and using it to manipulate how we think and act.”

One national standard would preempt “the patchwork of state laws, so when consumers and businesses cross state lines, there are consistent rights, protections and obligations,” GOP Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida, the subcommittee’s chair, said during his opening remarks.

Seventeen states have enacted their own privacy laws and regulations with another 18 states actively pursuing various pieces of legislation, creating a “complex landscape of state-specific privacy laws,” testified Katherine Kuehn, chief information security officer-in-residence for the National Technology Security Coalition, a cybersecurity advocacy organization.

‘Insecurity as data’

Among the other proposals the panel discussed was an update to the 1998 Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Act, co-sponsored by Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg and Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat.

The bill aims to ban targeted advertising to children and teens, prohibit internet companies from collecting the data of 13-to-17-year-olds without consent, and require direct notice if data is being stored or transferred outside of the U.S.

Ava Smithing of Nashville, Tennessee, described for the committee her teen years spent on Instagram and the body image issues and eating disorder that ensued after repeated targeted content.

“The companies’ abilities to track engagements, such as the duration of time I looked at a photo, revealed to them what would keep me engaged — my own insecurity,” she testified.

“They stored my insecurity as data and linked it to all my other accounts across the internet. They used my data to infer what other types of content I might ‘like,’ leading me down a pipeline from bikini advertisements to exercise videos to dieting tips and finally to eating disorder content,” Smithing, director of advocacy for the Young People’s Alliance, said.

‘Big tech has failed’

Bilirakis is a sponsor of the similarly named Kids Online Safety Act, along with fellow Reps. Erin Houchin, an Indiana Republican, Washington Democrat Kim Schrier and Castor.

“We know that big tech has failed, ladies and gentlemen, to prioritize the health and safety of our children online, resulting in a significant increase in mental health conditions, suicide and drug overdose deaths. We’ve heard stories over and over and over again in our respective districts,” Bilirakis said.

Bilirakis’ bill would outline a set of harms to children under 17 and require big tech and video game companies to mitigate those harms. The bill also aims to increase parental protections on platforms and commission a study of age verification options.

A companion bill in the U.S. Senate has been introduced by Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn.

Samir C. Jain, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the House panel that some proposals, including the Kids Online Safety Act, “while well-intentioned and pursuing an important goal, do raise some concerns.”

“Legislation that restricts access to content because government officials deem it harmful can harm youth and present significant constitutional issues,” said Jain, vice president of policy for the civil liberties advocacy organization.

“Further, requirements or strong incentives to require age verification systems to identify children often require further data collection from children and adults alike, and thereby can undermine privacy and present their own constitutional issues,” Jain testified.

However, Jain praised provisions in the American Privacy Rights Act that would increase transparency into the algorithms employed by large data companies and “prohibit using data in a way that perpetuates or exacerbates discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or disability status — whether a Black person looking for a job, a woman seeking a loan to start a business, or a veteran with a disability trying to find housing.”

During questioning, Bilirakis asked each panelist: “Yes or no, do you think this is the best chance we have to getting something done on comprehensive data privacy?”

All witnesses answered yes.

Meta, which owns Instagram, did not respond to a request for comment.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/18/national-privacy-standard-eyed-by-congress-for-data-harvested-by-big-tech-companies/feed/ 0
Divided U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with case of Pennsylvania man who joined Jan. 6 mob https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/divided-u-s-supreme-court-wrestles-with-case-of-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob/ Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:19:51 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=19791

Washington Metropolitan Police body camera footage shows Joseph W. Fischer in the U.S. Capitol at 3:25 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 6, 2021 (U.S. District Court documents).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a Jan. 6, 2021, case that could potentially upend convictions for a mass of Capitol riot defendants and slash some election interference charges against former President Donald Trump.

The case, Fischer v. United States, centers on whether former Pennsylvania police officer and Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer violated an obstruction statute when he joined the mob that entered the U.S. Capitol and prevented Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results for several hours.

The justices, appearing split and at times opaque in their individual stances, questioned Fischer’s attorney Jeffrey Green and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar for more than 90 minutes, though they grilled Prelogar for twice as long as Green.

“We thought it went about as well as it could, but we still think it will be a very close case,” Green told States Newsroom outside the court following arguments.

The provision in question stems from an early 2000s law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that passed after the Enron accounting scandal and targets “whoever corruptly … otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

In this particular case, the proceeding is referring to the joint session of Congress to certify the 2020 presidential election results.

The government maintains that Fischer had an intent to disrupt the proceeding, and points to his text messages in the preceding days that discuss stopping the democratic process and committing physical harm of Congress members.

The Justice Department also maintains video evidence shows Fischer assaulting a police officer and encouraging rioters to “charge” into the Capitol.

Fischer’s team argues that he wasn’t present while Congress was meeting, and that he only had a “four-minute foray to about 20 feet inside the Capitol.”

A lower trial court last year granted Fischer’s motion to dismiss the felony charge against him after he argued the clause is inseparable from preceding language that refers only to tampering with physical evidence.

The U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the ruling, though the three-judge panel split. Judge Florence Y. Pan wrote in the lead opinion that the statute is “unambiguous” in its meaning of what constitutes obstructing an official proceeding.

Roughly 350 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged under the same statute, and about 50 have been sentenced, according to Prelogar.

The clause in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act is also at the core of two of the four election subversion charges brought against Trump by U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith.

Whether those charges stand now hangs on whether the justices agree that the law applies to Fischer’s actions at the U.S Capitol.

If the justices rule in Fischer’s favor, Trump would almost certainly challenge the government’s case, further delaying an already drawn out legal process as the 2024 presidential election inches closer.

Additionally, numerous Jan. 6 defendants convicted of the charge, among the most serious levied against them, could challenge and potentially re-open their cases.

A ruling is expected in late June or early July.

This developing story will be updated.

]]>
Small business owners ask U.S. House tax writers to extend Trump-era deductions https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/12/small-business-owners-ask-u-s-house-tax-writers-to-extend-trump-era-deductions/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/12/small-business-owners-ask-u-s-house-tax-writers-to-extend-trump-era-deductions/#respond Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:30:47 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19757

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) speaks during a House Oversight Committee hearing related to the Justice Department's investigation of Hunter Biden, on Capitol Hill July 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — As Congress gears up for negotiations ahead of the 2017 tax law’s expiration, economists and small business owners urged U.S. lawmakers Thursday to extend or make permanent the Trump-era tax cuts.

Business owners from West Virginia and Wisconsin testified at a hearing before members of the House Committee on Ways and Means, advocating for the continuation of deductions that they say allowed them to reinvest in their operations.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which expires at the end of 2025, allowed some business owners to deduct up to 20% of qualified business income. The bill also temporarily cut taxes on new equipment purchases and other qualified assets, but those incentives are phasing out.

For individuals, the TCJA temporarily lowered marginal tax rates across most income levels and expanded the standard deduction and child tax credit, among other changes.

Large corporations saw the top corporate tax rate permanently drop to 21% from 35%.

“Seven years ago, Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act under President Trump, delivering relief to millions of families and small businesses and creating the best economy in our lifetime,” Committee Chair Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican, said during his opening remarks.

“Here’s the bottom line: Congress must act soon to prevent what will be the largest tax hike in history on workers, families, farmers, and small businesses,” he later added.

Democrats on the committee slammed the bill as a “corporate tax giveaway.”

“We knew that their tax scam would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and well-connected. We knew that it wouldn’t pay for itself. We knew that big corporations, not their workers, would feel the most benefit,” said the committee’s ranking member, Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

The Democratic-invited witness, Kathryn Anne Edwards, a labor economist at the RAND Corporation, said “unless the intention of the 2017 tax law was to directly transfer income to the richest Americans at incredible expense to ordinary Americans, it was a failure.”

Extending the law could cost the government between $3.3 trillion and $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years, Edwards told the panel, citing estimates from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Tax Policy Center.

A ‘landmark’ change

But small business owners say the law has been a financial lifeline.

Michael Ervin, founder of Coal River Coffee Company in St. Albans, West Virginia, told the panel that his five-year-old business has benefited from the 2017 tax code changes, particularly the temporary income deductions for sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations.

“After the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, LLCs and other pass-through businesses like mine were able to benefit from the newly minted Small Business Deduction, also known as the 199(a) deduction. This provision has allowed me to deduct up to 20% of my business income, which has let me invest in my business, my employees, and my community,” said Ervin, who employs roughly a dozen people.

If Congress does not extend the special deduction or make it permanent, Ervin told lawmakers that he will face a “significant tax hike” and be at a disadvantage compared to nearby large businesses.

“Down the street from my location is a larger competitor, Tim Hortons. In two years, if my taxes go up, the corporate rate will remain 21%. Tim Hortons will be paying a 21% federal rate and a 6.5% state corporate rate for a total combined rate of 27.5%, while my total combined rate will be closer to 45%. This disparity will make it extremely difficult for me to compete,” Ervin told lawmakers.

Austin Ramirez, president and CEO of the Wisconsin-based Husco International Inc., also told the panel that the pass-through deduction has “leveled our playing field with our peers organized as corporations.”

Husco, a privately held family-owned manufacturer of hydraulic and electromechanical parts for vehicles, employs about 1,600.

Ramirez said the TCJA enabled his business to do the “most significant renovation of our Waukesha, Wisconsin headquarters in 70 years.”

The company has invested $50 million to renovate its office space and shop floor, allowing the addition of nearly $150 million to its top line since 2017, Ramirez said.

Temporarily extending Trump tax cuts

Going forward, Smith said, congressional tax writers should note that the law “provided a critical blueprint that Congress can build upon to make lasting improvements to our tax code.”

“The House has already shown strong bipartisan support for key provisions of the 2017 law by passing the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act earlier this year. But there is still much work to be done,” he said, referencing a bill he sponsored and negotiated with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.

The hearing happened against the backdrop of stalled negotiations in the U.S. Senate on the act referred to by Smith, a short-term tax bill that garnered rare widespread bipartisan support in the House in January.

The bill, which would temporarily revive expired or expiring business tax breaks and expand the child tax credit, passed on a 357-70 vote.

While House Republicans overwhelmingly supported the legislation, GOP senators oppose provisions of the bill that would temporarily expand the refundable portion of the child tax credit and allow households to calculate the credit based on their previous year’s earnings, if higher than the current year’s.

Business owners at a February hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance implored the upper chamber to pass the bill.

Ramirez, the Waukesha business owner, also expressed on Thursday to the committee his support for the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, which would revive an expired 2017 incentive for businesses that allowed them to immediately write off research and development expenses.

“Husco’s inability to expense these costs since 2022 has cost us more than $20 million in liquidity, wiping out a large portion of the TCJA benefits and creating a disincentive to invest in innovation,” Ramirez testified.

Other temporary measures enacted under the TCJA expire on Dec. 31, 2025.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/12/small-business-owners-ask-u-s-house-tax-writers-to-extend-trump-era-deductions/feed/ 0
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley proposes adding radiation exposure bill to stalled tax package https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-sen-josh-hawley-proposes-adding-radiation-exposure-bill-to-stalled-tax-package/ https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-sen-josh-hawley-proposes-adding-radiation-exposure-bill-to-stalled-tax-package/#respond Tue, 09 Apr 2024 19:04:40 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19723

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during U.S. Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Feb. 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Demetrius Freeman-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri thinks he’s found a path for stalled tax legislation that would temporarily expand the child tax credit and restore business tax breaks that are expired or have sunset under the 2017 tax law.

Hawley’s idea is to attach the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to the tax bill to entice his party colleagues to pass it through the upper chamber — including top tax writer and radiation compensation champion Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho. The House already has passed the tax package with overwhelming bipartisan support.

“I think if they want to move the tax bill, I would say put RECA onto the tax bill and move them together. I think you can get 60 (votes) for that. I would go for it. I think other people would vote for it. It’s hard to see a path if that doesn’t happen, to be honest with you,” Hawley told States Newsroom and a small group of reporters Tuesday.

Hawley’s RECA proposal would expand the expiring compensation fund for victims of past government radiation and atomic bomb testing in the St. Louis area and the western and southwestern U.S.

Senators voted in favor of the bill in March, 69-30.

When asked by States Newsroom if the proposal — first reported by Punchbowl News —  had gained traction, Hawley said he’s “talked to multiple senators about this and where my position is.”

“Listen, I don’t control the floor. So it’s not my decision. But I’m just saying that if they want to move that bill … I can only control my own vote, but I’d vote for it,” he said.

Senate GOP opposition to tax bill

Some Senate Republicans refuse to support the tax bill over a Democratic proposal to allow taxpayers to receive the child tax credit even if they had no annual income the prior year — a “look-back” provision that they liken to expanding welfare.

Several also oppose a provision that would phase-in the credit at a faster rate, therefore increasing the amount parents could receive as a refund.

Crapo, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance and lead Senate Republican negotiator on the tax bill, has championed compensation for victims of government radiation exposure.

The Idaho Republican’s invited guest to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address in March was Tona Henderson, head of the Idaho Downwinders in Emmett, Idaho, a group that advocates for compensation for Idahoans affected by government nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s.

A Senate Finance Committee spokesperson said Crapo does not have any comment about Hawley’s idea.

A staunch opponent of the tax legislation, GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said Hawley’s proposal does nothing to move his position.

“You’re talking about the tax legislation I oppose?” he said when asked by States Newsroom Tuesday if attaching RECA would change his mind. “No.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and originally sponsored the tax bill, said he hasn’t yet been briefed on the proposal, which also would have to make it through the Republican-controlled House.

“But, you know, when I hear United States senators, particularly Republicans, say that they’re interested in families and small businesses, and getting a roof over people’s heads, I think that’s a good thing,” the Oregon Democrat said.

Wyden said he’s interested in “approaches that add votes, don’t subtract votes.”

What Republicans want to do — strip the bill of the look-back provision for the child tax credit — would alienate Democratic supporters of the bill, Wyden said.

“What has been offered thus far by the Senate Republicans would not get a single Democratic vote, and the sponsors of it know that.”

Worsening the national debt?

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget watchdog organization, panned Hawley’s proposal Tuesday afternoon, saying it has potential to turn the tax legislation “into a fiscally reckless bill by adding a layer of unpaid-for spending.”

“Despite its flaws, the House went through the important exercise of holding down their bill’s costs and ensuring it was fully offset. Throwing $50 billion of borrowing on top of it would unravel all of the progress made in that effort,” Maya MacGuineas, CRFB’s president, said in a statement.

The $78 billion bill negotiated by Wyden and Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the lead tax writer in the House, offsets the cost by ending a pandemic-era tax break for businesses that has been riddled with fraud.

“Of course we need to make sure victims of radiation exposure are appropriately compensated. But their grandchildren shouldn’t be the ones paying the bill,” MacGuineas said later in the statement.

“We are nearing an inflection point in our nation’s history where the national debt will exceed its record as a share of the economy, interest payments on that debt will be higher than what we spend on national defense or Medicare, and a host of important priorities will test our ability to continue borrowing.”

Note: This story was updated to reflect the Republicans’ wider offer to Democrats.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-sen-josh-hawley-proposes-adding-radiation-exposure-bill-to-stalled-tax-package/feed/ 0
Republicans return to D.C. amid dwindling majority, suspense over House speaker post https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/09/republicans-return-to-d-c-amid-dwindling-majority-suspense-over-house-speaker-post/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/09/republicans-return-to-d-c-amid-dwindling-majority-suspense-over-house-speaker-post/#respond Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:11:10 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19719

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Building after a vote on a funding bill that would avert a government shutdown on March 22, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Greene spoke to reporters about introducing a motion to vacate U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., over the bill’s passage (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans are returning from a two-week recess Tuesday with an even slimmer majority and the potential looming chaos of a second speaker fight in less than a year.

Hours before recess began on March 22, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia filed a motion to vacate the U.S. House speaker’s office, threatening to boot Mike Johnson of Louisiana from the role he’s held for just over five months.

The potential leadership crisis looms over a serious to-do list that includes renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and pressure to finally approve a long-stalled foreign aid request for conflicts in Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

Adding to the risk of chaos for the GOP: Two House Republicans abruptly announced resignations days before lawmakers headed home for the Easter holiday break, narrowing the House GOP’s majority to 217-213 once both are finished and prior to a series of special elections later this spring.

Colorado’s Ken Buck resigned on March 22, quickly followed by the abrupt resignation of Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, whose last day is slated for April 19.

And as the 2024 election cycle accelerates, political observers will be watching for whether House GOP lawmakers will balance day-to-day business while appeasing the political base for presumed Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump.

House Republicans have struggled to unify during the 118th Congress, which started with the party slogging through more than a dozen ballots to seat Kevin McCarthy at the helm, said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University.

McCarthy, of California, was ousted in the fall, and the former leader left Congress in December, chipping away at the majority’s margin.

“This is a continuation of the tumult that really began when the Republicans took power,” Dallek said.

Ukraine aid

With a two-week work period ahead, House GOP lawmakers face another chance to prove whether they can coalesce around billions in aid to U.S. allies. House Republicans also face big questions about federal funds to help rebuild the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and the renewal of a surveillance law that expires April 19, a self-imposed deadline after lawmakers extended it in December.

Johnson has vowed to prioritize Ukraine aid when House lawmakers return Tuesday, despite the prospect of continued opposition from the party’s far-right faction.

The U.S. Senate passed a $95.3 billion foreign aid package in February that would cover assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but the House has yet to advance it.

The standalone foreign aid package received support after Senate Republicans, heeding to Trump’s opposition, blocked a deal to alter U.S. immigration laws in exchange for Ukraine aid after months of bipartisan negotiations.

Johnson has said the House will be considering Ukraine aid again. “We’ve been talking to all the members especially now over the district work period. When we return after this period, we’ll be moving a product but it’s going to, I think, have some important innovations,” the Louisiana Republican said March 31 on Fox News’ “Sunday Night in America,” hosted by former GOP South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy.

Johnson said he wants to see the REPO Act as part of the deal. The legislation, introduced last year, would build a fund for Ukraine using the profits from the sale of seized Russian assets, which Johnson said would be “pure poetry.”

Johnson also said he expects conference members to rally in support if the bill restructured Ukraine aid in the form of loans and if it included a measure that would “unleash” American natural gas exports as a way to “help unfund Vladimir Putin’s war effort.”

The speaker faces an uphill battle in unifying House Republicans on the issue.

Georgia’s Rep. Andrew Clyde, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X April 3 that “(b)orrowing billions of dollars to protect Ukraine’s borders while OUR southern border is being invaded is a slap in the face to the American people.”

Some of Johnson’s conservative colleagues think amending the foreign aid bill could be a winning strategy.

Rep. French Hill of Arkansas said adding the REPO Act “would go a long way to filling the Ukrainian budget gap and be a good down payment for reconstruction, to make Putin pay the ultimate cost of his illegal invasion of Ukraine.”

“It would be, in my judgment, a way to get more support for the total package for Ukraine, seizing these Russian assets,” Hill told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan on Sunday.

When Brennan pressed him on the skepticism from his colleagues on the far right, including Greene, Hill responded: “I think overwhelmingly Americans and Republican primary voters believe that Putin should be defeated in Ukraine. As I’ve said before, we should draw the line on authoritarian dictators, particularly permanent members of the (United Nations) Security Council invading neighboring countries.”

Working with the Democrats?

If Johnson can’t unify the House GOP conference, votes from across the aisle may be the only path to passing an aid package, particularly if Johnson bypasses the House Committee on Rules. That fast-track to the floor requires a two-thirds majority for passage, which will inevitably mean Democrats’ support will matter.

However, striking a government funding deal with President Joe Biden last year was a flash point that led to the far-right House Republicans’ ouster of McCarthy.

Business in the lower chamber ground to a halt for weeks in October after seven House Republicans joined Florida’s Matt Gaetz in taking the gavel from McCarthy. All Democrats joined in voting for his removal.

Greene’s motion in late March to sack Johnson followed a fast-tracked bipartisan House vote  that resulted in the passage of the last round of overdue spending bills.

Greene did not force a vote on removing Johnson, but rather said it was a “warning” to him that the conference would begin looking for a new speaker who “will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with Democrats,” she told reporters after filing the motion.

Dallek said that Johnson putting a Ukraine deal on the floor “may be the final straw for the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and they might move to get rid of him.”

“There’s talk that Democrats would save (Johnson) in agreement for putting Ukraine funding on the floor. You know, retaining your speakership because you’re saved by the opposition party is not exactly a great place to be, right?” Dallek said.

Johnson said he believes his Republican colleagues view Greene’s effort as “a distraction from our mission.”

“Again, the mission is to save the republic,” he told Fox News’s Gowdy on Easter. “And the only way we can do that is if we grow the House majority, win the Senate and win the White House.

“So we don’t need any dissension right now. Look, Marjorie Taylor Greene filed the motion, it’s not a privileged motion so it doesn’t move automatically. It’s just hanging there. And she’s frustrated. She and I exchanged text messages. Even today. We’re going to talk early next week,” Johnson said.

GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he’s “optimistic” the House can pass the Ukraine aid bill during this work period.

“But it is very likely that after this Ukraine bill, we may have a standoff with the speaker. I hope the speaker prevails. He’s doing the right thing. It’s in our national security interest that Ukraine remain independent,” Bacon told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 31.

On Monday, Greene wrote on X that she remains opposed to Johnson bypassing the Rules Committee and calling a floor vote.

“Our Republican Speaker of the House is upsetting many of our members by relying on Democrats to pass major bills and working with Dems by giving them everything they want,” Greene wrote.

“That makes him the Democrat Speaker of the House not our Republican Speaker of the House.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/09/republicans-return-to-d-c-amid-dwindling-majority-suspense-over-house-speaker-post/feed/ 0
The IRS is testing a free method to directly file taxes. But not everyone is thrilled https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/05/the-irs-is-testing-a-free-method-to-directly-file-taxes-but-not-everyone-is-thrilled/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/05/the-irs-is-testing-a-free-method-to-directly-file-taxes-but-not-everyone-is-thrilled/#respond Fri, 05 Apr 2024 18:13:52 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19674

The IRS estimates that 19 million taxpayers are eligible to use a new Direct File program in advance of the April 15 tax filing deadline (Phillip Rubino/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Many U.S. taxpayers in a dozen states for the first time can electronically file their federal returns directly to the Internal Revenue Service for free — but critics insist the new federal benefit is not needed and will even harm both users and states.

More than 50,000 taxpayers in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have so far used the new online IRS Direct File program this tax season, according to the agency.

The free alternative to potentially costly private tax filing software rolled out in mid-March for the 2023 filing season. It is only available for those with W-2 income or simple credits and deductions, like the child tax credit or student loan interest.

The IRS estimates that 19 million taxpayers are eligible to use the new program in advance of the April 15 tax filing deadline.

But opponents argue the government Direct File program is a waste of resources and will snag business from professional tax preparers. They say it will confuse taxpayers who are accustomed to automatically filing their federal and state returns together through private software.

Some states also claim it will cost them revenue and increase what they have to spend on collections from taxpayers who owe money to their states.

The IRS program is purposefully small for now. The agency said in a launch-day release that it’s following “best practices for launching a new technology platform by starting small, making sure it works and then building from there.”

The pilot program “is almost tailor-made for students and young people with simple tax situations,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in late March, encouraging people to visit the new directfile.irs.gov.

The White House is celebrating the launch as a win for President Joe Biden, who in 2022 along with a Democratic-led Congress authorized its funding to jumpstart the program as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The progressive Economic Security Project estimates that if the program scales up, it could eventually save the average taxpayer up to $160 annually in tax prep costs. Assuming broad public adoption, that could add up to Americans saving $11 billion a year in filing fees and time.

The organization also estimates low-income households could gain up to $12 billion in unclaimed federal tax credits, and that the IRS would see a return on investment of more than $100 per federal dollar spent on the program due to less paperwork and fewer errors.

Roxy Caines, director of the Get It Back campaign, said Direct File could increase tax participation, particularly for low-income households.

“Having an accessible way to file taxes is really important because of the high cost of tax preparation as well as the arduous process. It’s often viewed as intimidating,” said Caines, who runs the financial literacy and tax credit advocacy campaign by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

‘Unnecessary and unconstitutional’

But not everyone is on board.

When Werfel appeared in February before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Republican Chair Jason Smith of Missouri described the program as a “scheme the American people didn’t ask for.”

In January, 13 Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen opposing “the unnecessary and unconstitutional efforts to empower the Internal Revenue Service with the expansive authority to prepare and file tax returns for all taxpayers.”

“American taxpayers do not want to invite the proverbial fox into the hen house,” wrote the officials, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

Attorneys general from Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia co-signed it.

The officials wrote that a program for taxpayers to directly file with the IRS at no cost “needlessly threatens” the livelihoods of tax preparers.

“Every year, tens of millions of taxpayers file their taxes for free with help from existing programs or online software. Additionally, millions of Americans work with small businesses in our states to file their taxes at an affordable cost, including both independent tax preparation services and local accountants. They choose to do so because they want an advocate in their corner who will represent their interests against the IRS bureaucracy,” they wrote.

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment about the criticism.

Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, a fiscally conservative organization that advocates for simplifying the tax code, told States Newsroom the project has been “dramatically oversold” and is being piloted in “some very easy places,” including states that don’t collect their own income tax.

Money for the IRS would be better spent on improving customer service, he argues.

“Every single penny they can scrounge up from other places needs to be poured into that effort, right? Now, in our opinion, designing a portal for direct file that is underpowered and is competing with other services is just not a priority,” he said, referring to the 22-year “Free File” arrangement the IRS has had with select private companies.

So what about Free File?

Today, the vast majority of taxpayers file electronically, according to IRS data. Of the 160 million individual federal tax returns that the IRS processed in 2022, 150.6 million, or 94%, were e-filed. Of those, just under 3.3 million used what’s been criticized as an opaque and complicated electronic Free File program.

Free File dates back to the early 2000s, when the idea of e-filing was just budding, and the government had no such program in place.

President George W. Bush’s administration was exploring the possibility of a free direct file portal through the IRS website.

At the time the agency was struggling after failed modernization efforts, and a public-private partnership with the burgeoning tax preparation software companies became an appealing option.

“The tax companies just said, ‘Well, we got a deal for you,’” recalls Nina Olson, who served as the National Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS from 2001 to 2019.

“And at that time, I was very suspect of the deal. I said at the time that they’re going to find themselves in 20 years, that you know, tax companies would pull out and you would have a patchwork of services available to people,” Olson, who now runs the nonprofit Center for Taxpayer Rights, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

What began in 2002 was an agreement between the IRS and a group of  private tax prep software companies, under the name Free File Alliance, to offer free federal tax returns to those under a certain income threshold. In 2023, that annual earnings threshold was $79,000 or less.

Taxpayers who earn above that income threshold have the option to complete their federal returns for free, unguided, using fillable PDF tax forms.

The just over two-decade-old program has been scrutinized for not reaching the taxpayers who most need a free filing option and for not providing a better user experience.

A 2019 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report described the program as “fraught with complexity and confusion.”

The inspector general found that in 2018 only 2.5 million of the 104 million taxpayers eligible for Free File actually used it.

About 34.5 million of those Free File-eligible taxpayers used one of the alliance companies’ commercial software options, and a likely 14 million of them paid to e-file their federal returns, the report found.

The low number of Free File users likely was because an estimated 9 million eligible taxpayers were unaware that they had to access the Free File software options via the IRS website.

Those who, for example, searched the web and found one of the IRS partner companies’ websites were “not guaranteed a free return filing,” and subsequently susceptible to advertising for potentially costly add-ons like “audit defense,” the report found.

Investigative reporting in 2019 by ProPublica revealed deliberate tactics to cloud the Free File program by Intuit, maker of TurboTax, one of the Free File Alliance’s largest partners.

Terms between the IRS and Free File Alliance initially included a commitment from the agency to not develop its own free online filing program. In exchange, the partner companies agreed to limit advertising and add-on solicitation on their free file web pages.

In 2019 the IRS dropped the prohibition on developing its own program. Limits on company marketing and solicitation for add-on products continued as part of the agreement — though Intuit would eventually have to pay for breaking its commitment.

H&R Block and Intuit respectively left the Free File Alliance in 2020 and 2021. Together they served about 70% of eligible Free File taxpayers in 2019, according to a 2022 Government Accountability Office report that recommended the IRS develop additional options for taxpayers to file for free.

Acknowledging the opposing viewpoints on whether the IRS should create, or could handle, its own program, the report concluded the agency “should work to manage the risk of taxpayers having fewer options to electronically file their federal taxes for free.”

In 2022, Intuit settled with attorneys general from across the U.S., agreeing to pay $141 million to Intuit TurboTax customers who ended up buying services that should have been free to them.

Today there are eight companies in the Free File Alliance, with differing income and tax situation criteria. All are listed on the IRS website.

Olson said she doesn’t view the IRS Direct File pilot as a competitor to the already existing Free File partnership. Rather, it’s “one more component of a robust tax online taxpayer account,” she said.

“This is what countries do around the world. We’re so far behind,” Olson said. “There’s a response to folks who say ‘The government doesn’t need to do this’ or ‘There’s no interest in this product.’ Regardless of whether there’s interest in the product, it’s a government obligation.”

Congressional mandate

Among the tens of billions of dollars Congress authorized for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act, $15 million was earmarked for exploring the possibility of an IRS-run direct federal tax filing system.

Specifically Congress mandated the agency to use the money to survey taxpayers’ wants and needs, obtain a third-party opinion, and report back to lawmakers on the costs to create and run such a program.

In its third-party review, the left-leaning think tank New America assessed that a successful IRS-run Direct File program “depends critically” on whether the agency prioritizes the project and begins with limited testing before building up.

The organization estimated that development, staffing, infrastructure and customer service for a scaled-up platform would cost the IRS annually anywhere from $22 million to $47 million if 1 million taxpayers use a Direct File program, and up to $126 million to $213 million in the event that 25 million taxpayers jump on board.

New America also recommended the IRS consider the importance of customer service, data privacy and taxpayers’ habits of filing federal and state returns all on one platform — one of the main concerns from critics.

Ayushi Roy, deputy director of New America’s New Practice Lab, which led the review, told States Newsroom she’s been talking to taxpayers using the Direct File pilot and “broadly speaking, we’re finding that filers are really landing on either ‘Wow,’ or ‘it didn’t include me for now.’”

The group will conduct its own analysis of the IRS trial run, particularly focusing on the experience for Spanish-speaking filers.

As for taxpayer interest, the IRS found that 72% of survey respondents said they were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in a free IRS-provided tool to prepare and file federal taxes.

The survey conducted in 2022 by MITRE, a nonprofit that runs federally funded research and development centers, also found that a top reason cited by 46% of those interested is that they would rather give their financial data to the IRS than to a third party.

An October 2023 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration took issue with the design of the survey, warning that the interest level may be “overstated” because the survey did not include a “neutral” option for respondents to choose.

However, the largely Democrat- and progressive-aligned international polling firm GQR found in late January through early February that between 92% and 95% of taxpayers across political ideologies and income levels in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New York and Texas support a free online IRS filing service.

Several state governments already offer free public electronic filing for state income tax returns, including AlabamaKansasKentucky and Pennsylvania, which offer the service regardless of income level. Some states, like California and Iowa, have income thresholds for free filing.

States bite back

Despite the adoption of free public filing in some states, 21 state auditors, comptrollers and treasurers from 18 states sent a letter on March 25 to Yellen and Werfel expressing concern about the “serious harm” the IRS Direct File program will cause and urging them to “shut down” the service.

“Taxpayers are not the only parties who will suffer from Direct File. States will suffer too. States will lose out on payments from Direct File taxpayers who owe state taxes but incorrectly assume that Direct File covers federal and state filings.

“States will then have to increase resources dedicated to collection efforts,” wrote the officials from Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

According to the Treasury Department, taxpayers using the IRS Direct File pilot in Arizona, California, Massachusetts or New York are automatically directed to their state-supported tax filing websites. Those in Washington are sent to that state’s page to claim the Working Families Tax Credit.

The IRS could not provide a more specific figure of how many taxpayers have so far used Direct File, and its latest estimate stands at 50,000. Advocates say they expect to learn updated numbers as soon as a week after federal taxes are due on April 15.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/05/the-irs-is-testing-a-free-method-to-directly-file-taxes-but-not-everyone-is-thrilled/feed/ 0
Massive $1.2 trillion spending package that would avert a shutdown released by Congress https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/massive-1-2-trillion-spending-package-that-would-avert-a-shutdown-released-by-congress/ Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:03:34 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=19441

A bipartisan agreement on government spending for the remainder of fiscal 2024 emerged just before 3 a.m. on March 21, 2024 (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Congress released the final six government funding bills early Thursday, starting off a sprint toward the Friday midnight deadline to wrap up work that was supposed to be finished nearly six months ago.

The bipartisan agreement on the $1.2 trillion spending package, which emerged just before 3 a.m., came less than two weeks after the U.S. House and Senate approved the other six annual appropriations bills.

This package includes the spending measures for some of the most crucial functions of the federal government — the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, State and Treasury.

The bill would also fund Congress, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary and the Social Security Administration.

The 1,012-page spending package provides money for hundreds of programs, including many that lawmakers will tout on the campaign trail heading toward the November elections. Included:

  • U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department employees will receive a 5.2% pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024.
  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new headquarters project — which has not only divided Democrats and Republicans, but the congressional delegations from Virginia and Maryland — will receive $200 million for construction on the Greenbelt, Maryland, site via the General Services Administration.
  • States will get $55 million in new Election Security Grant funding.
  • Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement will get more than $4 billion in funding increases.
  • Child care and early learning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a $1 billion increase in funding. The boost will go toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides grants to state, territorial and tribal agencies, and Head Start, which provides funding to local grantees.
  • The U.S. Capitol Police will receive a 7.8% funding increase.
  • Afghans who assisted the United States during the war would be eligible for an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas.
  • The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, the primary aid organization in Gaza, would be stripped of U.S. funding after Israel accused agency employees of taking part in Oct. 7 attacks.

Weekend work possible

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday morning the package clears “another hurdle towards our ultimate goal of funding the federal government.”

“This funding agreement between the White House and Congressional leaders is good news that comes in the nick of time: When passed it will extinguish any more shutdown threats for the rest of the fiscal year, it will avoid the scythe of budget sequestration and it will keep the government open without cuts or poison pill riders,” he said. “It’s now the job of the House Republican leadership to move this package ASAP.”

After the House votes to approve the package, likely Friday, Schumer said, “the Senate will need bipartisan cooperation to pass it before Friday’s deadline and avoid a shutdown.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday during a press conference he expected senators would be in session this weekend to take final votes on the package.

“My assumptions and what I’ve told our members is we’re likely to be here this weekend. That will be determined, however, by how long it stays in the House,” McConnell said.

“And when it’s over here, what we have recently done — and I think hopefully will work again — is that in return for a certain number of amendments, we can finish it quicker, hopefully, than putting us in the position of shutting down the government,” McConnell added.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said in a written statement the package would claw back $20.2 billion from the Internal Revenue Service funding that Democrats included in their signature climate change and tax package and $6 billion in unused COVID-19 funds.

On immigration, the funding package “cuts funding to NGOs that incentivize illegal immigration and increases detention capacity and the number of Border Patrol Agents to match levels in the House-passed appropriations bill and the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2),” he said, referring to non-governmental organizations.

The package also includes funding for the nation’s defense. “This FY24 appropriations legislation is a serious commitment to strengthening our national defense by moving the Pentagon toward a focus on its core mission while expanding support for our brave men and women who serve in uniform,” Johnson said. “Importantly, it halts funding for the United Nations agency which employed terrorists who participated in the October 7 attacks against Israel.”

More than $1B to reduce child care costs

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a written statement that she was “proud to have secured $1 billion more to lower families’ child care costs and help them find pre-K — a critical investment to help tackle the child care crisis that is holding families and our economy back.”

“From day one of this process, I said there would be no extreme, far-right riders to restrict women’s reproductive freedoms — and there aren’t,” Murray said. “Democrats stood firm to protect a woman’s right to choose in these negotiations and focused on delivering investments that matter to working people.”

Democratic lawmakers, Murray said, “defeated outlandish cuts that would have been a gut punch for American families and our economy — and we fought off scores of extreme policies that would have restricted Americans’ fundamental freedoms, hurt consumers while giving giant corporations an unfair advantage, and turned back the clock on historic climate action.”

The House and Senate must debate and approve the measure in less than two days under the stopgap funding agreement, otherwise a weekend funding lapse would begin. If it went on beyond the brief period of the weekend, a partial government shutdown would begin.

The House can easily hold a vote within that timeline, but the Senate will need to reach agreement among all 100 of its members in order to avoid casting votes past that benchmark.

Here’s a look at where Congress increased funding and where it cut spending on these six government funding bills for fiscal year 2024, which began back on Oct. 1.

Defense

Congress plans to spend $824.5 billion on the Defense spending bill, which predominantly funds the Pentagon, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

That bill includes funding for a 5.2% pay raise for military and civilian defense employees that will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024. The basic allowance for housing will increase by 5.4% and the basic allowance for sustenance will increase by 1.7%.

That total spending level would be divvied up among several core programs, including $176.2 billion for military personnel, an increase of $3.5 billion; $287.2 billion for operations and maintenance, $9.1 billion above current levels; $172 billion for procurement of military equipment, $9.8 billion more than the enacted level; and $148.3 billion for research and development, an $8.6 billion increase, according to a House GOP summary and a summary from House Democrats.

The Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs would get $300 million for research and testing as well as $200 million for procurement, including for the Iron Dome and David’s Sling. An additional $300 million would go toward the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said in a statement the bill “will invest in our ability to stay ahead of the threat of China, defend our country from foreign adversaries while standing firm with America’s allies, and take care of our servicemembers and their families.”

The joint explanatory statement that accompanies the bill calls on the Department of Defense to look into why the military is having difficulty recruiting.

“The Military Services are in the midst of one of the greatest recruiting crises since the creation of the all-volunteer force,” it says. “Since retention of enlisted servicemembers remains strong, those who continue to serve will promote to more senior grades, leaving a distressing shortfall in junior enlisted servicemembers, who account for 40 percent of the total active U.S. military force. The Nation needs America’s youth to strongly consider uniformed service.”

The package calls on the Defense Department to “conduct an independent survey to better understand the failure of recruitment efforts by the services,” according to House Republicans’ summary of the bill.

The secretary of Defense must also brief the Defense Appropriations subcommittees on a proposal to increase the pay for junior enlisted troops.

Financial Services and General Government 

The Financial Services and General Government bill — which funds the U.S. Treasury Department, Executive Office of the President, judiciary and more than two dozen smaller programs — would receive $26.1 billion in funding. That’s about $1.1 billion below the current funding levels for those programs.

Senate FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said in a written statement the “bipartisan legislation invests in these critical priorities for our nation and more — including providing key resources to tackle the opioid epidemic and the necessary funding to build the new FBI headquarters in Greenbelt, Maryland.”

“Building an economy that works for everyday Americans requires supporting our small businesses and community-based lenders, protecting consumers, building out our broadband infrastructure, and ensuring the security of our financial system,” Van Hollen said.

The Department of Treasury would receive $14.2 billion, a $22.9 million reduction to its current funding levels. Of that total funding level, $12.3 billion would go to the Internal Revenue Service, equal to its current funding, and $158 million would go toward the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Judiciary would get more than $8.6 billion to operate the U.S. courts, including the District Courts, Courts of Appeals and other judicial services. That funding level is an increase of nearly $170 million.

It provides $129 million for salaries and expenses of the U.S. Supreme Court and $20 million to care for the building and its grounds, according to the joint explanatory statement.

The bill includes $791 million in funding for the District of Columbia, a decrease of $1 million. That includes $40 million in residential tuition support, $30 million in emergency and security costs, $8 million in upgrades to sewer and water treatment and $4 million in HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Executive Office of the President would receive about $872.5 million — a $6 million decrease from the 2023 fiscal level, according to a bill summary from Democrats.

That includes $114 million for the Office of Administration, $19 million for the National Security Council, $22 million for the Office of National Cyber Director and $457 million for the National Drug Control Policy.

The bill would provide the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with about $151 million in funding, a decrease of $1.5 million. The bill bars CPSC from issuing a ban on gas stoves, “which would reduce consumer choice,” according to a House GOP bill summary.

That policy provision would prohibit CPSC from “promulgating, implementing, administering, or enforcing any regulation to ban gas stoves as a class of products,” according to the explanatory statement.

CPSC has not made any regulatory action to ban gas stoves. Agency officials have expressed concern about indoor air quality of gas stoves and the agency is researching the impacts on human health of those indoor gas emissions.

The Election Assistance Commission would receive a cut of $280,000 in funding for a total level of $27.7 million.

A total of $55 million from that allocation would go toward Election Security Grants “to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements,” according to the explanatory statement.

Homeland Security 

Congress plans to spend $62 billion on the Department of Homeland Security, including upgrading technology to screen for narcotics like fentanyl at U.S. ports of entry and an additional $495 million in funding to hire 22,000 border patrol agents.

The bill provides U.S. Customs and Border Protection with $19 billion, a $3 billion increase above current levels, and more than $9.6 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, an increase of $1.1 billion.

It puts in place policy requirements for detention centers, such as barring contracts with private companies that do not meet inspection standards, and providing an additional $3 million to expand the use of ICE body cameras, according to the explanatory statement. 

The legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to publish data on the 15th of every month on the total detention capacity and the number of “got aways” and people “turned back” at the southern border, according to the joint explanatory statement.

DHS refers to people as “got aways” when an individual is observed making an unauthorized entry into the U.S. and is not turned away, or apprehended. That data is not publicly available.

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would get $404 million, an increase of about $20 million. About $30 million of that funding would go “to support the safe reunification of families who were unjustly separated at the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump Administration,” according to House Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The bill provides $5.1 billion for Enforcement and Removal Operations, an increase of $900 million above current funding. Of that, $355 million would go toward 41,500 detention beds.

The bill would appropriate $11.8 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, a $122.7 million boost; $10.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, an increase of $1.2 billion; and $25.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a funding cut of $72.9 million.

The FEMA funding would go toward several projects, with $20 billion of those funds for disaster relief.

Labor-HHS-Education 

The bill would appropriate $13.7 billion for the Labor Department, $145 million less than current funding levels and $79 billion for the Education Department, a cut of $500 million, according to the House GOP summary.

The Health and Human Services Department would get $116.8 billion, or about $3.9 billion less than the $120.7 billion provided during the last fiscal year. The House Democrats’ summary of the bill, however, says that when earmarks are factored into the total spending level, HHS would get a $955 million increase.

Senate Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee Chair Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, said in a written statement the bill “helps take on the fentanyl and opioid crisis, expand access to affordable child care, invest in critical mental health and affordable health care programs, and connect Americans with the education and workforce training they need to land good-paying jobs.”

Funding for HHS would go to numerous health programs, including a $300 million increase to the National Institutes of Health for a total spending level of $48.6 billion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would get $9.2 billion, more than $4.5 million above its current funding level.

Title X family planning grants would get $286 million in funding, the same amount they currently receive, despite House Republicans proposing to completely eliminate the program.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, a central component of the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mpox outbreak, would get $3.6 billion, a $5 million increase.

Of that total spending level, $1 billion would go toward the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and $980 million would go to the Strategic National Stockpile. That represents an increase of $65 million and $15 million, respectively.

The bill includes a $1 billion increase in funding for child care and early learning programs within HHS, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the legislation.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant would see a $725 million, 9%, increase in funding compared to current levels, for a total appropriation of $8.8 billion. Another $12.27 billion would go toward Head Start programs, a boost of $275 million over the current level.

“Sustained annual increases to our federal investments in child care and Head Start are critical in tackling the child care crisis and helping to ensure more families can find and afford the quality, affordable child care and early childhood education options they need,” Senate Democrats’ summary says. “With the new investments provided in this bill, annual discretionary funding for CCDBG and Head Start over the last three fiscal years has increased by $4.4 billion.”

The Education Department’s spending would go to numerous initiatives, including $24.6 billion for student financial aid programs.

Pell Grants, which go to about 7 million lower-income college students, would continue to have a maximum award of $7,395 during the 2024-2025 academic year. The Federal Work Study program for college students would also get equal funding at $1.2 billion.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill continues to include the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant person.

The decades-old provision, first added in the 1970s in a slightly different form, affects patients in federal health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Similar provisions on abortion access exist throughout many of the other government funding bills.

Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill includes $6.75 billion for operations in the Capitol, including funding related to the summer’s party conventions and the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

The bill would boost funding for the U.S. Capitol Police to $792 million, a 7.8% increase from fiscal 2023.

The measure includes funding for retention and recruitment programs of Capitol Police officers, including student loan payments and tuition reimbursements. Capitol Police officers, the force responsible for security at the Capitol complex, reported lower morale in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is an essential investment in democracy and oversight that bolsters the legislative branch’s capacity to better serve the public,” said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. “This bill delivers the funding and infrastructure required for the U.S. Capitol Police to safeguard the Capitol complex and keep it accessible to the public.”

A joint explanatory statement accompanying the bill says the measure would allow $2 million for Capitol Police to protect members of Congress outside the Capitol complex but within the Washington, D.C., region. Members have experienced increased threats in recent years.

The measure also includes funding for quadrennial events related to the presidential election.

Capitol Police would receive $3.2 million for overtime to support the national political conventions — Republicans’ in Milwaukee and Democrats’ in Chicago — over the summer and to prepare for the inauguration in January.

Inauguration Day is in the next fiscal year, which begins in October, but expenses associated with preparing for it could be incurred this year. The bill would allocate nearly $3.7 million for salaries and expenses associated with the inauguration.

The bill would provide $16.6 million for Capitol grounds, House and Senate offices and the Capitol Power Plant.

The measure includes a provision that would claw back unspent funds from members’ Representational Allowances, the accounts that reimburse senators and representatives for official expenses. Unspent funds from those accounts would be used to pay down the national debt.

The measure includes a longstanding policy freezing members’ pay.

State-Foreign Operations 

Congress plans to allocate just over $58.3 billion for the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and other related programs, including refugee emergency assistance and diplomatic activities.

Republican lawmakers are touting an overall cut to the bill — down from last year’s $59.7 billion total.

The bill includes $11.8 billion for the U.S. State Department and USAID and $10.3 billion for international development, including a loan to the International Monetary Fund to provide economic relief for some of the world’s poorest nations.

The bill allocates $10 billion for global health initiatives that focus on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as providing vaccination programs for children.

Of that health funding, Democrats cheered that the bill “protects longstanding funding,” as highlighted by Murray’s office, for family planning and reproductive health services in poor nations around the globe, for which nearly $524 million is allocated, remaining at the same level as the current spending level.

Funding appropriated to the president for multilateral assistance to international organizations and programs — ranging from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to programs for victims of torture — is set to drop to $436.9 million from last year’s funding level of $508.6 million.

That reduction, in part, reflects current political tension over the Israel-Hamas war.

Absent from the bill are funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, a primary humanitarian organization in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West bank territories. Many Western nations cut UNRWA funding after Israel accused 13 of its employees of taking part in the Oct. 7 attacks and many more of sympathizing with Hamas and other militant groups. The agency received $75 million from the U.S. in fiscal year 2023.

Another notable absence from the bill is funding for the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, which received $17.5 million from the U.S. in last year’s funding bill.

Republicans celebrated the elimination of funding for the agency’s inquiry into human rights abuses in Palestinian territories, which the UN Human Rights Council opened after a flare up of violence in May 2021. The inquiry began to collect evidence of war crimes “committed by all sides” shortly after Hamas attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, killing some 1,200 and taking roughly 240 hostages.

The bill will meet the annual U.S. $3.3 billion commitment to Israel this year among the $8.9 billion in security assistance to foreign governments.

The funding roadmap for U.S. international activities extends several programs, notably authorizing an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans who assisted the U.S. during its war in Afghanistan.

]]>
Trump, GOP-led states argue presidential immunity claim to Supreme Court https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/20/trump-gop-led-states-argue-presidential-immunity-claim-to-supreme-court/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/20/trump-gop-led-states-argue-presidential-immunity-claim-to-supreme-court/#respond Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:55:28 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19419

A rioter holds a Trump flag inside the US Capitol Building near the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

Former President Donald Trump renewed his call to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to dismiss charges against him, asserting that presidents enjoy near-total immunity from criminal prosecution.

In addition, as a deadline loomed for briefs in the case, 18 Republican-led states filed an amicus brief Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts and grant Trump blanket immunity. Oral arguments before the high court on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25, and federal district court proceedings have been halted until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

Trump’s lawyers, led by D. John Sauer of St. Louis, in a 52-page brief argued that a strong executive with virtually no criminal liability from the judicial system was intended by the framers of the Constitution and part of a “234-year unbroken tradition” of not prosecuting presidents for action taken while in office.

The justices should weigh that tradition and dismiss the federal charges accusing Trump — now the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party — of conspiring to overturn his reelection loss in 2020, they wrote.

U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith oversaw an investigation into Trump that led to the criminal charges that the president spearheaded a multipart conspiracy trying to avoid leaving office.

But Trump’s attorneys have argued that those charges should be dismissed under a doctrine of “absolute presidential immunity,” which they said presidents must have to properly exercise their powers.

“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” the attorneys wrote in the brief’s opening paragraph.

That view is in line with how framers of the Constitution saw the presidency, they said.

“Even if some level of Presidential malfeasance, not present in this case at all, were to escape punishment, that risk is inherent in the Constitution’s design,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

“The Founders viewed protecting the independence of the Presidency as well worth the risk that some Presidents might evade punishment in marginal cases. They were unwilling to burn the Presidency itself to the ground to get at every single alleged malefactor.”

Impeachment

D. John Sauer, former solicitor general of Missouri, represented Donald Trump before an appeals court panel on Jan. 9, 2024. Sauer is pictured here testifying during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on July 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

The only exception to absolute immunity is a president who is impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate, Trump’s lawyers said.

Trump was twice impeached by the House while in office, but acquitted in two Senate trials that required a two-thirds vote for conviction. A majority of senators — with seven Republicans joining all Democrats — voted to convict him in 2021 on charges similar to those he faces in criminal court related to his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

Trump’s lawyers argued, as they have in previous filings, that federal courts should never be able to review the conduct of presidents who haven’t been convicted in an impeachment trial.

They asked the court to reject an argument that another exception to presidential immunity could be made for criminal charges stemming from a president’s desire to stay in power.

“Because virtually all first-term Presidents’ official actions carry some, at least partial, motivation to be re-elected, this exception to immunity would swiftly engulf the rule,” they wrote.

Prosecuting or not prosecuting a president is inherently a political act, Trump’s attorneys said.

“This observation applies to former Presidents as well — and it applies most of all to a former President who is the leading candidate to replace the incumbent who is prosecuting him,” they wrote.

Trump has amassed enough delegates to win his party’s nomination and  face President Joe Biden in a fall rematch of the 2020 election.

A Feb. 6 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower court’s ruling against Trump noted that the charges allege criminal action that emanated from an effort to unlawfully retain the presidency.

Trump appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Red states line up behind Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Laura Olson/States Newsroom).

Attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia signed a brief to the court filed Tuesday, accusing the government’s timing of the 2020 election interference case as politically motivated.

“After waiting 30 months to indict President Trump, the Special Counsel has demanded extreme expedition from every court at every stage of the case. His only stated reason, the ‘public interest,’ is so thin it’s almost transparent,” the attorneys general wrote.

In the 54-page amicus brief, the state officials allege that the prosecution’s “failure to explain its extraordinary haste suggests one troubling answer: That the timing of the prosecution is designed to inflict maximum damage on President Biden’s political opponent before the November 2024 election.”

The attorneys general argued that the threat of liability could distort a president’s decision-making and lead to a worse job performance, citing several cases, including 1997’s Clinton v. Jones.

The attorneys general, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, further accuse the lower courts of “mistreatment” of concerns over opening the proverbial “floodgates” for future partisan prosecutions. Marshall has taken a lead role in advancing a string of legal arguments surrounding election rules likely to boost Trump.

“The court below also underestimated the risk of ‘a torrent of politically motivated prosecutions’ on the ground that ‘this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,’” the attorneys general wrote, citing the appeals court.

“Glaringly absent is the fact this case is the second of two federal prosecutions against President Trump, who also faces two state prosecutions. How can the ‘risk’ possibly ‘appear slight’?”

The state officials pointed to state and civil cases against Trump in Georgia and New York as evidence that the 2020 election interference case “is not the only one to raise concerns of partisanship.”

Another view, from Ohio, Alaska and Wyoming

Another brief, signed by only three Republican attorneys general, called on the court to assert a more complex legal standard that would still provide broad immunity on a sliding scale.

The three Republican attorneys general told the U.S. Supreme Court that the justices should take a broad view of presidential immunity when the court hears Trump’s attempt to dismiss criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost led a brief to the court that was also signed by Alaska Attorney General Treg R. Taylor and Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill. The Republicans argued not for absolute immunity, but a two-part test that would still allow for broad immunity.

Arguing more about legal theory than the specifics of Trump’s case, Yost, Taylor and Hill said the judiciary must balance the need for a president to exercise wide discretion in executing the office’s powers with the need for accountability of a rogue executive.

“Very broad, but not limitless, presidential immunity is dictated by our constitutional structure,” they wrote.

The three attorneys general proposed a two-part test to settle a claim of presidential immunity.

First, the courts should determine how closely the alleged acts are tied to the president’s core constitutional duty, they said. As an example, they said presidents should be given more latitude in conducting foreign affairs than in investigating a political rival because conducting foreign affairs is a central constitutional duty.

Courts should also determine the “urgency of the situation surrounding” alleged crimes by a president, they said. For example, a president seizing property of political opponents should be considered differently than a president seizing property during a war.

The attorneys general did not say how courts should decide Trump’s case, suggesting instead the Supreme Court simply announce that it is adopting the two-part test and leave the trial court responsible for determining how to apply it to the facts of the case.

A Supreme Court-sanctioned test would help the trial court conduct unprecedented proceedings and could also give the public confidence that the trial was nonpolitical, they said.

Other arguments

Several other interested parties submitted briefs Tuesday, the last day for so-called friend-of-the-court briefs in Trump’s case before the high court.

Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Montana’s Steve Daines, wrote that the court should adopt the absolute immunity standard, worrying that a decision otherwise would create a cycle of political prosecutions for every future president.

“The D.C. Circuit opinion is akin to a loaded gun lying on the table that future prosecutors can now wield against Presidents (and former Presidents) of all political persuasions,” the NRSC wrote. “The D.C. Circuit seems to believe that partisan actors will be able to resist the temptation to use that weapon against their political enemies; anyone who pays the slightest attention to American politics knows better.”

Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House chief of staff during the 2020 election and his subsequent efforts to overturn the results, also wrote to the court to ask that a decision in the case reinforce the legal principle giving lower federal officials immunity from state prosecution.

Meadows, a former U.S. House member from North Carolina, is among Trump’s co-defendants on state charges in Georgia related to the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/20/trump-gop-led-states-argue-presidential-immunity-claim-to-supreme-court/feed/ 0
Suit alleging suppression of free speech met with skepticism at U.S. Supreme Court https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/18/suit-alleging-suppression-of-free-speech-met-with-skepticism-at-u-s-supreme-court/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/18/suit-alleging-suppression-of-free-speech-met-with-skepticism-at-u-s-supreme-court/#respond Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:32 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19401

Protestors backing a social media case against the U.S. government rallied outside the Supreme Court on March 18, 2024, as arguments in the case were being heard inside. The lawsuit filed in 2022 by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies to suppress the freedom of speech (Jane Norman/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court seemed skeptical Monday of a lawsuit alleging the federal government colluded with social media companies to suppress the freedom of speech, with a majority of justices across the ideological spectrum raising issues with the case and its potential consequences.

The Biden administration argued to the court there is no evidence that the government violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false, misleading or dangerous information online.

Beyond that, the court should dismiss the litigation because plaintiffs don’t have the right to sue, said Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general.

Arguments occurred in a packed courtroom, where just outside dozens of protesters held signs accusing the government of infringing on free speech.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by two states — Missouri and Louisiana — and five individuals who either were banned from a platform or whose posts were not prominently featured on social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X, formerly known as Twitter.

Fletcher argued that the plaintiffs have not shown any evidence that decisions by social media companies to remove or deprioritize content can be attributed to the government. Instead, the companies made their own decisions relying on their own content moderation policies.

There was no coercion or attempted intimidation, Fletcher said, and the best proof of that is that social media companies “routinely said ‘no’ to the government.”

“They didn’t hesitate to do it, and when they said ‘no’ to the government, the government never engaged in any sort of retaliation,” Fletcher said. “Instead, (the federal government) engaged in more speech. Ultimately, the president and the press secretary and the surgeon general took to the bully pulpit. We just don’t think that’s coercion.”

Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general for the Louisiana attorney general, argued that the government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, “and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That is just being a bully.”

Emails obtained as part of the lawsuit, Aguiñaga contends, show the government badgered platforms behind closed doors, abused them with profanity and “ominously says that the White House is considering its options… all to get the platforms to censor more speech.”

“Under this onslaught,” he said, “the platforms routinely cave.”

Government agencies have routinely encouraged social media companies to restrict harmful or illegal content for years, including posts involving terrorism and human trafficking.

Aguiñaga argued that speech involving criminal activity is not protected. But the Biden administration, he said, began to push social media companies in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Content was also targeted that involved election disinformation.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a court nominee of President Donald Trump, ruled that officials under both President Joe Biden and Trump coerced social media companies to censor content over concerns it would fuel vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans prohibited the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from having practically any contact with the social media companies. It found that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content.

The Supreme Court placed a temporary stay on the order in October until it decides the case.

Standing and traceability

A question at the core of Monday’s arguments was whether any harm to the plaintiffs could be, in fact, traced back to the government’s actions or could be remedied by judicial relief.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Aguiñaga to highlight “the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows the government was responsible for one of your clients having material taken down.”

“How do you decide that it’s government action as opposed to platform action?” Kagan followed.

Aguiñaga pointed to a May 2021 email the Biden administration sent to a social media platform regarding misinformation about COVID-19. Aguiñaga argued that evidence shows two months later content from one of the plaintiffs, Jill Hines of Louisiana, was suppressed.

“A lot of things can happen in two months,” Kagan said. “So that decision two months later could have been caused by the government’s email or that government email might have been long since forgotten because there are a thousand other communications that platform employees have had with each other, a thousand other things that platform employees have read in the newspaper.”

“I mean why would we point to one email two months earlier and say it was that email that made all the difference?” Kagan said.

Justices question consequences for public safety, national security

During Monday’s arguments, the justices focused on whether encouragement by federal officials amounted to illegal coercion, rather than merely informing or persuading social media companies.

“There are lots of contexts where government officials can persuade private parties to do things the officials couldn’t do directly,” Fletcher argued when Justice Clarence Thomas questioned him about coercion versus censorship.

“For example, recently after the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, a number of public officials called on colleges and universities to do more about antisemitic hate speech on campus,” Fletcher said.

An ideologically diverse majority of justices raised concerns about the potential consequences of the litigation for things like public safety and national security.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the government violates the First Amendment when it requests the removal of factually inaccurate posts. He suggested there could be national security concerns if false information was posted online about troops.

Kavanaugh also asked how the federal government’s communications with social media companies were any different than when news organizations are warned that a story they are about to publish could affect national security.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett continued along that line of questions, asking whether the FBI would still be able to warn social media platforms if an individual had been doxxed in a way that might put them at risk.

Aguiñaga countered that he is a free speech purist but in that circumstance, the government would be allowed to issue warnings to social media companies about content.

But when speech is protected, the government has no right to intervene to push for it to be censored, he said.

“When the government is identifying a specific viewpoint and specific content that it wishes to wholly eliminate from public discourse, that’s when the First Amendment problem arises,” he said, later adding that the government has lots of tools at its disposal to combat misinformation.

“Censorship,” he said, “has never been the default remedy for a perceived First Amendment violation.”

That argument didn’t move Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“You have to admit that there are certain circumstances,” she said, “in which the government can provide information and encourage the platforms to take it down.”

The most scathing criticism of the day came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“I have such a problem with your brief, counselor,” Sotomayor said to Aguiñaga. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to. I don’t know what to make of all this.”

Aguiñaga apologized if “any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who sat back and rocked his chair with his hands behind his head, seemed most sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ case, reframing the discussion as Aguiñaga was facing a series of difficult questions.

“Coercion doesn’t only apply when the government says ‘do this, and if you don’t do this, there are going to be legal consequences,’” Alito said, adding: “It’s a more flexible standard and… you have to take into account the whole course of the relationship.”

In his rebuttal, Fletcher compared the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies and public comments about misinformation to President George W. Bush’s public condemnation of pornography and President Ronald Reagan’s criticism of media influence of drugs and violence.

A ruling on the case is not expected for several months.

Plaintiff reaction

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said afterward he believes the Supreme Court justices “will make the right decision here.”

“Ultimately that (decision) will continue to build a wall of separation between tech and state using this lawsuit. The court will affirm the district court injunction and we’re excited to get back to the district court level,” Bailey told reporters on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court after arguments concluded.

When asked for his reaction to the justices’ skepticism of Aguiñaga’s argument of government coercion, Bailey said “the evidence clearly establishes coercion.”

Bailey argued that evidence gathered by Missouri, Louisiana and the individual plaintiffs reveals the Biden administration threatened reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields social media companies from liability for content published on their platforms.

“Those are direct explicit threats against the big tech social media giants,” he said.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

Jason Hancock reported from Columbia, Mo. Ashley Murray reported from Washington, D.C.

This story was updated at 1:45 p.m. to add comments from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. 

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/18/suit-alleging-suppression-of-free-speech-met-with-skepticism-at-u-s-supreme-court/feed/ 0
U.S. House votes to ban TikTok unless it is sold by China-controlled parent https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/u-s-house-votes-to-ban-tiktok-unless-it-is-sold-by-china-controlled-parent/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/u-s-house-votes-to-ban-tiktok-unless-it-is-sold-by-china-controlled-parent/#respond Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:48:20 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19331

The U.S. House on March 13, 2024, 352-65 passed a bill that effectively bans TikTok unless the company splits from its Chinese owner ByteDance because of national security concerns (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a bill that effectively bans TikTok unless the company splits from its Chinese owner ByteDance because of national security concerns.

The 352-65 vote occurred just a week after lawmakers introduced the bipartisan proposal and days after the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously advanced the legislation, an unusual speed for the 118th Congress.

The bill required a two-thirds majority because House leadership placed it on the floor under a fast-track procedure called suspension of the rules.

The bill, dubbed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, now heads to the Senate, where concerns over singling out a private company in legislation may slow momentum.

President Joe Biden, whose administration had a hand in crafting the bill, is expected to sign the measure if the upper chamber approves it.

Despite broad support across the aisle, the legislation has been met by fierce opposition from TikTok users — totaling some 170 million in the U.S. — and from a coalition of young House lawmakers.

“Not only am I a ‘no’ on tomorrow’s TikTok ban bill, I’m a ‘Hell no,’” Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida said at a Tuesday press conference, questioning which companies are large enough to acquire TikTok. Frost is the youngest member of Congress at 27.

“Essentially what this bill is doing is setting this whole sale up to fail,” he said.

Users of the wildly popular social media platform flooded lawmakers’ offices with thousands of calls Thursday after the company sent a push notification warning that a ban could be imminent, an argument the company maintains.

Supporters from both parties refute that claim.

“The legislation before the Congress does not ban TikTok. It is designed to address legitimate national security and privacy concerns related to the Chinese Communist Party’s engagement with a frequently used social media platform,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said in a statement Wednesday.

“If enacted, the bill would require divestiture by ByteDance and the sale of TikTok to an American company,” he continued.

Divestiture deadline set 

The bill gives TikTok 180 days to splinter from ByteDance and will make it unlawful for any American app store or web hosting company to distribute or maintain platforms controlled by designated U.S. adversaries.

The social media platform, 100% owned by ByteDance, has long been in the crosshairs of federal and state lawmakers, whom intelligence officials have warned of the possibility of China’s government accessing Americans’ data via the app.

Lawmakers passed legislation in December 2022 banning the app from most federal employee devices. The Montana Legislature banned the app last year, but the law remains tied up in court.

Former President Donald Trump issued an executive order in 2020 banning TikTok unless it broke from ByteDance. This week Trump reversed his position on the platform, telling CNBC that “without TikTok you’re going to make Facebook bigger.”

Some Republican lawmakers have fallen in line with Trump’s argument, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who said on the floor Wednesday before the vote she worries that Congress could open a “Pandora’s box” and target other platforms like X.

Greene said her “free speech” was “restored” when Elon Musk purchased Twitter and reinstated her account.

“This is really about controlling Americans’ data,” said Greene on the floor before the vote.

The bill’s original sponsor, Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, said from the floor that he wanted to clear up “misconceptions” of the bill ahead of the vote.

“It does not apply to American companies,” the chair of the House Select Committee on China said and later posted on X from his office’s account.

“It only applies to companies subject to the control of foreign adversaries defined by Congress. It says nothing about election interference and cannot be turned against any American social media platform. It does not impact websites in general. The only impacted sites are those associated with foreign adversary apps, such as TikTok.com.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/u-s-house-votes-to-ban-tiktok-unless-it-is-sold-by-china-controlled-parent/feed/ 0
Business owners, union leader urge U.S. Senate to move ahead soon on stalled tax package https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/business-owners-union-leader-urge-u-s-senate-to-move-ahead-soon-on-stalled-tax-package/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/business-owners-union-leader-urge-u-s-senate-to-move-ahead-soon-on-stalled-tax-package/#respond Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:22:35 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19327

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Screenshot from committee webcast).

WASHINGTON — Business owners, CEOs and a steelworkers’ union official urged lawmakers Tuesday to quickly pass a tax policy bill that has been stalled in the U.S. Senate since the end of January.

The witnesses invited to testify on manufacturing taxation before the Senate Committee on Finance told the panel that the proposal, which includes extending and restoring three business tax incentives, is “critical” to growing their businesses.

“The ability of manufacturers to innovate is so important to global competitiveness, and our fear is without appropriate tax incentives to do that, companies will stand still for too long,” Anna Fendley, director of regulatory and state policy for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based United Steelworkers, testified.

The Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, which passed the U.S. House in January in an overwhelming bipartisan 357-70 vote, has been touted by both parties as a compromise to  temporarily expand the child tax credit while also temporarily reviving or enhancing tax credits available to small businesses and corporations.

Empty spot in the machine shop

Courtney Silver, a business owner in North Carolina, told the lawmakers that the current law’s phasing-out of an additional tax break on new equipment purchases is “something I think about every day” when walking by an empty spot in her machine shop that she had hoped to fill with a new piece of equipment by now.

“I know the piece of machining technology I would like to invest in. It would decrease our lead times, it would increase our productivity, it would get us into new markets that we’re not currently in, and it would create jobs, highly skilled highly paid jobs in machining,” said Silver, owner and president of Ketchie Inc. in Concord, where her company plays a role in the supply chain by making machine parts for manufacturers.

Mark Widmar, CEO of First Solar near Toledo, Ohio, said the company is planning a $400 million investment in a research and development center in the state.

He told Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden that the passage of R&D tax incentives contained in the stalled tax bill would accelerate his company in the race against China’s solar industry.

“If we’re not able to out-innovate, we will not be able to survive the onslaught that we’re facing today. This bill is critical from that standpoint as it relates to R&D and the opportunity to expensing the R&D versus deferring R&D,” Widmar said.

“Plus it’s also very critical to the bonus depreciation that’s enabling a lot of the factory expansions that we’re making right now,” he added, referring to the expiring tax break on business equipment and property purchases that is also a concern for Silver.

“And putting everything off just generates more uncertainty and delay?” Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, asked in a follow-up question.

“Delay and loss of thousands of jobs,” Widmar answered.

‘The time to act is now’

The bill would buy lawmakers time as they stare down a looming tax code negotiation in 2025 when numerous Trump-era provisions wind down, including the child tax credit refund amounts, lowered individual income tax rates and changes to business taxes.

A provision in the proposed tax bill would actually delay a section of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that critics say disadvantages businesses who write off research and development costs.

The 2017 law mandated that businesses to begin gradually writing off domestic research and development costs over five years starting in 2022.

Wyden’s tax legislation, a bicameral bill with Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, would restore companies’ abilities to expense the R&D costs immediately through 2026.

The Wyden-Smith bill would also restore bonus depreciation to 100% until 2026, meaning businesses could claim additional deductions, beyond the allowable amount, on qualifying business purchases and property.

The 100% bonus depreciation initially established in the 2017 tax law has been waning with each passing year and is currently at 60%. It will continue to decrease until 2027 if lawmakers do not restore it in the proposed tax bill.

Silver, who told lawmakers about her delay in an equipment purchase for her machine shop, said the dwindling bonus depreciation is a “roadblock.”

“That changes my return on investment calculation (on the purchase), and it feels like an irresponsible business decision, and it feels too risky. It’s honestly an awful feeling,” she told lawmakers.

GOP unhappy with provision in child tax credit

Movement on the tax bill has stalled as Republican senators remain opposed to a provision that would allow families to temporarily use prior-year income on their tax returns to calculate their child tax credit if their earnings were higher than the current tax year’s.

The GOP lawmakers maintain that allowing families to choose a higher-year income strips the work incentive for middle- and low-income households that seek the credit. Child tax credit proponents refute that argument.

Wyden urged his colleagues that “the time to act is now.”

“I continue to be open to all sides who want to work in good faith to get this done,” he said in his opening remarks during Tuesday’s hearing. “Some of my colleagues understand the urgency here. And let’s understand that this set of policies isn’t going to be on the table in 2025 if this bill stalls out.”

Ranking member Mike Crapo said he doesn’t know “that there’s a stronger advocate in Congress for extending and making permanent” the business tax incentives.

“My hope is that we can get there, sooner than later,” said Crapo, an Idaho Republican. “There are, as everybody knows, some concerns on the Republican Senate side with regard to other provisions in the bill, and my hope is that the Republican Senate can have its voice, we will be able to deal with it, and get something resolved quickly.

“It’s a difficult time, and as almost every single issue in this Congress today, there are difficult battles to deal with. That being said, I don’t disagree with the testimony of any one of you,” he said to the witnesses.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/13/business-owners-union-leader-urge-u-s-senate-to-move-ahead-soon-on-stalled-tax-package/feed/ 0
Bill to split TikTok from Chinese ownership gets unanimous vote from key U.S. House panel https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/bill-to-split-tiktok-from-chinese-ownership-gets-unanimous-vote-from-key-u-s-house-panel/ https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/bill-to-split-tiktok-from-chinese-ownership-gets-unanimous-vote-from-key-u-s-house-panel/#respond Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:55:10 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19257

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee voted unanimously Thursday to advance a bill to force the social media platform to break ties with its Chinese parent company (Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on the powerful U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously approved a White House-supported bill that would force TikTok to split from its Chinese parent company or face prohibition from U.S. app stores and web hosting services.

Members voted 50-0 Thursday to advance the Protect Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, legislation that would make it illegal for U.S. entities to distribute, maintain or update apps or other immersive technology owned by ByteDance.

The wildly popular social media platform has long been a concern of Congress and intelligence officials. Lawmakers passed legislation in December 2022 banning the app from most federal employee devices. The Montana legislature banned the app last year, but the law remains in legal limbo.

The bill received sweeping support because of national security concerns over China, a major U.S. adversary, having access to Americans’ data and a grip on their attention spans. Chinese companies can be made to share sensitive information with that country’s government.

The legislation has moved at an unusually fast pace, only having been introduced in the House Tuesday. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana said he plans to bring the bill to the floor as early as next week.

Committee members sat in a multi-hour classified hearing with U.S. intelligence officials before Thursday’s vote. During the hearing, the lawmakers “witnessed firsthand, in real time, how the Chinese Communist Party can weaponize platforms like TikTok to manipulate the American people,” Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington Republican, said in her opening remarks.

The Biden administration worked with lawmakers from both parties to craft the bill and “want to see this bill get done so it can get to the president’s desk,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Wednesday.

Despite the administration’s support for the bill, President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign joined TikTok less than a month ago.

Thursday’s scheduled vote set off a frenzy among TikTok users, whom the company urged to contact Congress. Lawmakers’ offices were flooded with calls, many from young people.

TikTok, which boasts 170 million American users and almost 7,000 U.S. employees, maintains the bill, if enacted, would result in an outright ban of the platform.

“This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States,” a spokesperson for TikTok said in an emailed statement Thursday. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

Both the White House and House Republicans disagreed with TikTok’s accusation of a ban.

“We don’t see this as banning these apps — that’s not what this is — but by ensuring that their ownership isn’t in the hands of those who may do us harm. This is about our national security, obviously, and this is what we’re focused on here,” Jean-Pierre said Wednesday.

The legislation empowers the president, in conjunction with executive branch agencies, to determine when a divestiture or other transaction “would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary” — in other words, when TikTok has severed financial ties with ByteDance.

post on X from the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party said the panic among users Thursday showed “clear demonstration of how TikTok gives an adversary political power on U.S. soil.”

“TikTok is LYING to the American people about our bill. It does not ban the app, but offers them a pathway to remain in the U.S.,” read the post from the committee chaired by Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher, one of the bill’s original sponsors.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/bill-to-split-tiktok-from-chinese-ownership-gets-unanimous-vote-from-key-u-s-house-panel/feed/ 0
Trump, Biden close in on clinching nominations after broad Super Tuesday victories https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/06/trump-biden-close-in-on-clinching-nominations-after-broad-super-tuesday-victories/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/06/trump-biden-close-in-on-clinching-nominations-after-broad-super-tuesday-victories/#respond Wed, 06 Mar 2024 17:30:25 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19225

Signage for voters looking to vote in-person at the Wellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, in Denver, Colorado. (Marc Piscotty/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Despite facing 91 felony counts, hefty civil penalties and a packed 2024 legal calendar, Donald Trump emerged on Super Tuesday as the Republican Party’s presumptive choice as its presidential candidate in November.

The former president has secured 995 of the necessary 1,215 GOP delegates needed to clinch the GOP nomination, and likely will meet that number in primaries later this month.

Super Tuesday’s contests did the same for President Joe Biden, delivering to him 1,497 of the 1,968 Democratic delegates needed for his party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Trump’s lone challenger dropped from the Republican U.S. presidential nomination race Wednesday after the former president’s overwhelming victories in more than a dozen Super Tuesday states.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley suspended her bid without endorsing the party front-runner, saying “It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him, and I hope he does that.”

“At its best, politics is about bringing people into your cause, not turning them away,” Haley continued in a speech from Charleston, South Carolina. “And our conservative cause badly needs more people. This is now his time for choosing.”

On top of that, Trump at last earned the endorsement of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, according to news reports.

Despite the overwhelming performances, neither front-runner produced a clean sweep Tuesday, as Haley holdouts in Vermont and a tiny ripple of Biden opposition in American Samoa as well as an “uncommitted” vote in Minnesota revealed vulnerabilities.

Haley’s exit from her long-shot campaign all but cements what voters have expected: A November rematch between Biden and Trump, whose loss in 2020 sparked a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump faces four federal criminal charges for attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, a case stalled by his legal appeals for complete immunity from criminal prosecution — a matter that will be decided in the coming months by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court ruled Monday in another legal tangle involving Trump. The justices unanimously decided Trump could remain on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot after that state’s Supreme Court removed him based on a Civil War-era constitutional clause barring insurrectionists from holding future office.

Trump targets Biden

In a dark victory speech Tuesday night from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump focused on Biden, whom he called “the worst president in the history of our country.” Trump blamed inflation and an immigration surge on Biden.

Trump maintained that he was the victim of election fraud — a claim that has been widely debunked — and unfair targeting by the Justice Department under Biden.

“In some ways, we’re a third-world country,” he said Tuesday. “We’re a third-world country at our borders and we’re a third-world country at our elections. And we need to stop that.”

Trump has consistently claimed his efforts that led to the Jan. 6 attack were meant to counter fraudulent election results, but has shown no evidence of determinative voter fraud. Courts dismissed dozens of claims he brought following his reelection loss in 2020.

‘Uncommitted’ votes

On the Democratic side, as predicted, Biden also finished Super Tuesday as the clear Democratic choice in more than a dozen states.

However, neither Biden nor Trump cleanly swept their parties’ primaries and caucuses throughout 16 states and one U.S. territory.

The contests were held in Alabama, AlaskaArkansas, California, ColoradoMaine, Massachusetts, MinnesotaNorth CarolinaOklahomaTennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia. Biden also won Iowa’s Democratic mail-in vote Tuesday.

While both men picked up hundreds of party delegates during the single largest day of nominating contests on the 2024 race calendar, Haley squeezed out a win in Vermont, picking up nine delegates, according to The Associated Press delegate tracker.

On the Democratic side, Biden lost a handful of delegates in Minnesota to voters who chose “uncommitted,” apparently as a protest of the administration’s stance on Israel’s continuing bombardment of the Gaza Strip. As of Wednesday morning, nearly 19% of voters in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party primary, the state’s Democratic Party, had chosen “uncommitted.”

Biden split delegates with politically unknown entrepreneur Jason Palmer who defeated the incumbent in a small contest on the U.S. territory of American Samoa.

McConnell endorses Trump; Haley holds out

After Tuesday’s results made clear Trump would be the Republican nominee, Kentucky’s McConnell, the most high-profile GOP official to withhold support from Trump, issued an endorsement.

“It is abundantly clear that former President Trump has earned the requisite support of Republican voters to be our nominee for President of the United States. It should come as no surprise that as nominee, he will have my support,” McConnell said in a statement first reported by Politico.

Haley did not immediately endorse Trump after a primary race that became increasingly bitter as the field winnowed.

Trump did not mention Haley’s name in a Tuesday night victory speech and it was Biden who made the first appeal to her voters in a campaign statement Wednesday.

“Donald Trump made it clear he doesn’t want Nikki Haley’s supporters,” Biden said in the statement. “I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign.”

Biden said Haley supporters may not agree with him on many issues but could find common ground on “preserving American democracy, on standing up for the rule of law, on treating each other with decency and dignity and respect, on preserving NATO and standing up to America’s adversaries.”

Delegate count mounting

Biden and Trump have not yet mathematically clinched party nominations, but the symbolic victories are expected by month’s end.

At the time that Haley called off her campaign Wednesday morning, she had garnered 89 delegates, according to the latest AP count.

Looking ahead, nine Republican delegates are up for grabs in American Samoa on Thursday, and GOP nominating contests on March 12 in Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi and Washington carry a total combined award of 161 delegates.

Democrats in Hawaii go to the polls Thursday, where Biden could gain a possible 22 delegates.

On March 12 Biden’s party offers up another 235 delegates in contests in Georgia, Mississippi and Washington.

The next two largest delegate hauls for both Biden and Trump come on March 19 when a total 350 Republican delegates are available in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio, and 379 Democratic Party delegates are up for grabs in those same states, except Florida which will not hold a Democratic nominating contest this year.

Down ballot results

The struggle for control of Congress also gained more clarity in primary results.

In a marquee U.S. Senate race, Democratic U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff and Republican former professional baseball player Steve Garvey advanced to the general election for a California U.S. Senate seat.

Garvey edged out two other Democratic House members, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, to clear the state’s “jungle primary,” where candidates of all parties run in a single race and the top two members face off in a general election.

Sen. Laphonza Butler, a Democrat, has held the seat since longtime Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s death last year. Butler did not seek reelection.

In Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz easily secured renomination on the Republican side, while nearly 60% of Democratic voters chose U.S. Rep. Colin Allred to face Cruz in the fall.

Neither race is expected to change the makeup of the Senate, with Schiff considered a near-lock to win in November and Cruz only slightly less favored in his race, according to analysis from Inside Elections.

In a closely watched race in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, former U.S. Department of Justice official Shomari Figures and state House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels advanced to a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

The Republican runoff will be between former state Sen. Dick Brewbaker of Pike Road and attorney Caroleene Dobson.

The district, which federal courts redrew after state lawmakers ignored a court order to create a second majority-Black district, is expected to favor Democrats in November, possibly affecting the balance of power in the House.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/06/trump-biden-close-in-on-clinching-nominations-after-broad-super-tuesday-victories/feed/ 0
Biden to push for return of expanded child tax credit in State of the Union speech https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/biden-to-push-for-return-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-in-state-of-the-union-speech/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/biden-to-push-for-return-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-in-state-of-the-union-speech/#respond Tue, 05 Mar 2024 23:12:18 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19211

President Joe Biden is expected in his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, March 7, 2024, to discuss taxes, housing and so-called junk fees. In this photo, Biden delivers his State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 7, 2023, as Vice President Kamala Harris and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy., R-Calif., listen (Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON —  Top White House economic officials said Tuesday that President Joe Biden will announce how his administration is tackling economic issues — from the housing crisis to restoring the expansion of the child tax credit — during this week’s State of the Union address to Congress and the nation.

“Providing more breathing room to American families is really something that remains a top priority for the president,” said Jon Donenberg, a deputy director of the National Economic Council, in a briefing at the White House with reporters from regional publications.

The speech is expected to be of great significance for Biden as he seeks reelection in November against the likely Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

Some policies Biden will address in his remarks Thursday night include his administration’s efforts to crack down on “junk fees,” help first-time homebuyers and protect renters from rent hikes, as well as pushing for several changes to the U.S. tax code.

Daniel Hornung, a deputy director of the National Economic Council, said that Biden will make the case to Republicans to bring back the expanded child tax credit.

“The president will push to restore that tax break to make sure that families across the country, families with children, have the breathing room they need,” Hornung said.

Biden will use the State of the Union to push tax policies that promote “interests of working people and not billionaires or megacorporations,” Hornung said.

The president will propose a multi-pronged plan that would include raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, a priority Biden discussed in last year’s budget proposal.

Hornung said the president wants to reverse the “tax windfall” that corporations enjoyed following the Trump administration’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that set the corporate rate at 21%.

Biden will again pitch a minimum tax on the richest 0.01% of Americans and call on Congress to ensure tax cuts for lower- and middle-income Americans by restoring all or part of the pandemic-era expansion of the child tax credit and premium tax credits for Affordable Care Act plans.

Push in Congress on taxes

Biden’s renewed urgency over the tax code comes as Trump’s 2017 tax policies are winding down and must either be renewed or changed by the end of 2025. Biden is expected, in his speech, to criticize Republican proposals to extend some Trump-era tax breaks.

Congress has taken rare bipartisan, bicameral action this year to head off the looming tax code tempest.

A proposal to temporarily expand the child tax credit and restore a handful of expired or expiring corporate tax incentives received sweeping support in the U.S. House in late January. The bill, which the White House has endorsed, is stalled in the U.S. Senate.

The 2021 expansion of the child tax credit lifted nearly 3 million children out of poverty, according to the U.S. Census. 

That temporary pandemic-era expansion under the American Rescue Plan, now expired, increased benefits from up to $2,000 to $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6, and $3,000 for other qualifying children under age 18.

Housing crunch

Several economic advisers noted that rental rates have continued to rise and that there is a “housing gap in this country,” Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden said.

“He has specific proposals that he’ll speak to in terms of housing affordability and ensuring that we are addressing rent,” Tanden said of the president’s speech Thursday.

Rohit Chopra, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said that the administration is also looking at ways to lower closing costs on buying a home because the White House’s analysis has found that expense “drains people’s down payment and pushes up their monthly mortgage payment.”

He added that the White House is also looking for ways to make it easier for homeowners to refinance “now that (interest) rates have started to come down.”

Hornung said that the White House is also exploring ways to “boost the supply of housing throughout the country,” and find steps that the federal government can take to “help state (and) local governments reduce barriers” when it comes to expanding housing.

He said that in addition to getting more housing supply online, Biden will lay out how the administration is looking “to invest in the supply of affordable housing,” and to block “practices that are driving up rents that are not just about supply and demand.”

Biden to point to actions on junk fees

Chopra said that Biden will stress how his administration has gone after “junk fees,” and will continue to do so, pointing to a finalized rule Tuesday that will cap most credit card fees to $8.

“I think the impact is gonna be most felt by those who really are living paycheck to paycheck, those who are trying to pay off their debt,” he said.

Chopra said that the administration launched an industry-wide study and found junk fees in hotels, ticket sales, airlines and the banking industry. He said it’s a tactic that companies use to push up purchase prices to “charge for fake or worthless services.”

“I think we’ve all been seeing these creep across the economy in our lives almost everywhere we go,” he said.

Chopra said the White House found that one bank was charging customers a fake junk fee for a printed bank statement “that was neither printed nor mailed.”

“We have already ordered them and others to refund the money,” he said. “I think what we’re seeing is people, perhaps those who have the least amount of time to bicker with customer service agents. They’re no longer spending that time. They’re actually seeing that money being kept for themselves.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/biden-to-push-for-return-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-in-state-of-the-union-speech/feed/ 0
Five months late, Congress is poised to pass a huge chunk of federal spending https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/five-months-late-congress-is-poised-to-pass-a-huge-chunk-of-federal-spending/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/five-months-late-congress-is-poised-to-pass-a-huge-chunk-of-federal-spending/#respond Tue, 05 Mar 2024 11:55:24 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=19199

he U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send a massive spending package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline (Getty Images Plus).

WASHINGTON — Congress is on track to approve a staggering $468 billion in government spending this week, finishing part of the work it was supposed to complete by Oct. 1 — including a big boost intended to shore up the federal WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

Other agencies will see cuts, including the FBI and the National Park Service, as Democrats and Republicans haggled over winners and losers in the annual spending process. There are spending increases for items such as wildland fire management, first-time-ever federal oversight of cosmetics and emergency rental assistance for low-income families.

Surviving: Plenty of earmarks for lawmakers’ local projects, also referred to as congressionally directed spending or community project funding, which received $12.655 billion in spending for the 6,630 projects within the six spending bills combined into one package, according to two people familiar with the total.

For example, in the bill that provides funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, that includes everything from $3 million for the Integrative Precision Agriculture Laboratory at the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. to $800,000 for Livingston Parish Courthouse Renovations in Louisiana to $3.3 million for the Pinetop Wildland Fire Response Station in Arizona.

The U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send the package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline.

However, agreement on six other consequential appropriations bills, which are due by March 22 and include health, defense and homeland security programs, remains elusive.

Dems tout WIC funding

The first batch of government funding bills brokered by the divided Congress includes the Agriculture-FDA, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, Interior-Environment, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD measures.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement released Sunday that she and other Democratic lawmakers “fought hard to protect investments that matter to working people everywhere and help keep our economy strong—rejecting devastating cuts to housing, nutrition assistance, and more.”

“Forcing states to pick and choose which moms and kids will be able to access essential WIC benefits was never an acceptable outcome to Democrats, and this bill ensures that won’t happen by fully funding WIC for millions of families nationwide,” Murray said, referring to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, which provides grants to states and had faced a shortfall.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member on the panel, said in a written statement the “bills will make a real difference in communities throughout the United States.”

“Members of the Appropriations Committee in both chambers have worked very hard to reach agreements on the bill text unveiled today,” Collins said. “I look forward to working with Chair Murray and our colleagues to bring this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote without any further delay.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, said the bills “achieve what we set out to do: strategically increase defense spending and make targeted cuts to wasteful non-defense programs.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement the bipartisan bills “help keep communities safe and healthy.”

“I am grateful that each of these bills rejects many of the extreme cuts and policies proposed by House Republicans and protects the great strides we made over the last two years to reverse the underinvestment in domestic programs that Americans depend on,” DeLauro said. “I urge swift passage of this package and look forward to releasing the remaining 2024 funding bills.”

Agency cuts

The bills would cut funding from several federal agencies, including a $977 million reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency; a $654 million cut for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; a $150 million reduction to the National Park Service; and a $122 million cut to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects are among the programs that would see an increase in their funding.

Congress, after approving these six bills this week, must finalize bipartisan agreement on the remaining six.

Those bills include Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and State-Foreign Operations. They are typically harder to negotiate than the bills in this week’s minibus.

Congress would likely start on the fiscal 2025 process shortly after approving all dozen annual appropriations bills, given that Biden is expected to send lawmakers his next request, for fiscal 2025, on March 11.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s funded in each of the bills that Congress will vote on this week.

Agriculture-FDA 

The Agriculture-FDA funding bill would provide $26.2 billion in discretionary spending for the agencies and programs within the legislation, including conservation and rural development. That represents a $383 million increase above current funding levels.

The USDA would receive $22.3 billion, which would be about $383 million more than current law. That discretionary funding would go toward several programs, including the Agricultural Research Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The FDA would receive $3.5 billion in discretionary funding, including “$7 million to conduct oversight of cosmetics for the first time ever and $1.5 million to reduce animal testing through alternative methods,” according to a summary of the bill released by Senate Democrats.

The Agriculture-FDA measure includes significant mandatory spending as well, which is counted outside the discretionary spending caps the Biden administration and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, agreed to in January.

Mandatory spending is required by laws that Congress has already approved. It makes up the largest component of federal expenditures and is often spent outside of the annual appropriations process, though some mandatory spending accounts are reported in the bills.

Discretionary accounts make up about one-third of federal spending and are what’s subject to the spending caps on the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The Agriculture-FDA bill would approve $7 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program, an increase of more than $1 billion compared to its current funding level.

The increase would “fully fund” the WIC program, which includes more than 7 million people, according to subcommittee Chairman Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, who said in a statement he was “focused on delivering for American families, farmers and producers, and rural communities.”

“This bill gets that done, even while we had to make some tough decisions to get there,” Heinrich said. “I am especially proud that we stood firm to fully fund WIC and the other programs that will help put food on the table for America’s kids.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides grocery benefits to low-income families, would get $122.4 billion, a $32 billion decrease in mandatory spending that’s “due to the end of pandemic-era benefits and decreases in participation rates,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

Child nutrition programs — like the national school lunch program, school breakfast program and summer food programs — would get $33.3 billion, an increase of $4.7 billion over what the federal government currently spends.

The legislation doesn’t include many of the conservative policy riders House Republicans added in their original bill, such as a proposal to ban the abortion medication mifepristone from being sent to patients through the mail.

The bill has 72-pages of community projects, formerly known as earmarks, that will go to nearly every state in the country.

Commerce-Justice-Science 

The Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill provides approximately $67 billion in discretionary funding plus $2 billion in emergency funding “to address violent crime, counter the fentanyl crisis, and maintain U.S. scientific, technological, and economic superiority over China,” according to Senate Republicans’ summary of the bill.

That funding level would be divvied up with about $37.5 billion for the Department of Justice, $10.8 billion for the Department of Commerce, $9.1 billion for the National Science Foundation and nearly $24.9 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA.

The bill would approve $844 million for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, that will go toward legal services for underrepresented communities and modifications to courtrooms. That is about $16 million less than current law.

The bill would address the more than 2.5 million case backlog in immigration courts by hiring new immigration judges and providing training.

The bill would require EOIR to implement a performance appraisal based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office for immigration judges and the agency has to submit a report to Congress on the results of the appraisal process.

The legislation provides an increase of $13 million for the Violence Against Women Act, bringing the funding level to  $713 million toward those programs. That funding will go toward assistance with transitional housing, domestic violence reduction, sexual assault services, research on violence against Indigenous women and legal assistance, among other initiatives.

The bill provides about $10.6 billion for the FBI, a decrease from fiscal 2023. That funding will go toward targeting fentanyl and opioid trafficking, child exploitation, trafficking and bioforensic analysis, among other initiatives.

The bill includes a 95% cut in funding for FBI construction, from $629.1 million to $30 million. The bill would require the FBI to conduct a study on the “feasibility of expanding the FBI operations in regional offices around the country,” according to the explanatory statement. 

The bill includes a provision that none of the funds can be used to “target or investigate parents who peacefully protest at school board meetings and are not suspected of engaging in unlawful activity.”

House Republicans have scrutinized the Justice Department after the agency directed the FBI to investigate threats of violence made to school board officials and teachers after a conservative backlash to discussions about race in public schools.

The bill would provide the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with $1.6 billion, a decrease of $112 million below fiscal year 2023 levels in order to reverse “anti-Second Amendment overreach,” according to a summary of the bill by House Republicans.  

Members of Congress obtained 86 pages of earmarks in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill.

Energy-Water

The Energy-Water appropriations measure would moderately boost spending on defense — primarily the Energy Department’s nuclear programs — while cutting slightly from the bill’s domestic water infrastructure accounts.

The defense discretionary total in that bill, which is apart from overall Pentagon spending, would be $33.3 billion, a 6% increase from fiscal 2023, and discretionary domestic spending on the bill’s programs would be $24.9 billion, a 2% decrease.

The bill includes more than $50 billion for the Department of Energy, $8.7 billion for the Army Corp of Engineers, which oversees most federal water project construction, and $1.9 billion for the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.

The National Nuclear Security Administration would see a nearly $2 billion funding increase from fiscal 2023, almost all of which is for the agency’s weapons activities.

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior Department agency that deals with water and hydroelectric power, would see a $31 million decrease to $1.9 billion.

The bill included 30 pages of earmarks.

Interior-Environment

The Interior-Environment funding bill, which covers the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies, totals $41.2 billion, which would be a decrease of more than $11 billion, more than 21%, from fiscal 2023.

The bill would cut nearly $1 billion of the EPA’s budget, a 9.6% decrease from fiscal 2023.

Most of that cut, $745 million, is from the agency’s Hazardous Substance Superfund. That account, which funds cleanup of massive environmental hazardous waste sites, would receive $537.7 million, down from $1.3 billion in fiscal 2023.

Two other long-term spending laws, the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and Democrats’ 2022 energy, taxes and domestic policy law, provide additional funding for Superfund cleanup. Total federal spending would be more than $3 billion in fiscal 2024, even with the proposed cut.

Addressing wildfires was a priority in the bill, according to summaries from both Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

The bill includes $6 billion for the U.S. Forest Service, including $2.3 billion for the agency’s Wildland Fire Management program. That represents an increase of $1.37 billion for wildland fire management.

The bill would also maintain full funding for wildland firefighter pay, which was increased in the 2021 infrastructure law.

The bill maintains $900 million in mandatory federal spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that allocates money for federal land acquisition, state grants for outdoor recreation and related efforts.

And it would direct $1.9 billion in mandatory spending for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund that addresses roads and buildings across five Interior Department agencies, with the bulk of the funding going to the National Park Service.

The funding levels in both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and public lands fund meet caps established in the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act and do not count against the discretionary funding limit.

The bill includes 100 pages of earmarks.

Military Construction-Veterans Affairs

Lawmakers are touting the Military Construction and VA bill’s $326.4 billion total as “fully funding” veterans’ benefits and health care, bolstering national security in the Indo-Pacific region, and upgrading housing for service members and their families, among other priorities, according to a statement Sunday from Murray’s office.

The bill contains $175.2 billion in mandatory spending on veterans’ benefits that encompass disability compensation, education and employment training.

On the discretionary side, $153.92 billion would be allocated to the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs as well as four related agencies, including Arlington National Cemetery, American Battle Monuments Commission, Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

If cleared by Congress, the lion’s share of the bill’s funds, at $134.8 billion, would go to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Of that total, roughly $121 billion would be allocated for veterans medical care, including $16.2 billion for mental health, $5.2 billion for telehealth services, $3.1 billion for homelessness programs, $231 million for substance abuse and opioid misuse prevention, and $108 million for overall well-being programs, or “Whole Health Initiatives.”

The remaining $18.675 billion in discretionary funds would head to the Department of Defense for the planning and construction of several military projects, including $2.4 billion for shipyard infrastructure, $2 billion for military family housing, and $1.5 billion for construction or upgrades to military Reserve and Guard facilities.

Specific domestic projects and their locations can be found in the 11 pages of lawmaker earmarks for community funding. They include a range of infrastructure upgrades, numerous child development centers and several barracks upgrades at military sites across the U.S.

Other allocations in the military construction spending total include $634 million for energy projects, $293 million to the NATO Security Investment Program, and $489 million for base realignment and closures, $50 million of which will be dedicated to the cleanup of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS chemicals.

About $131 million would be allocated for planning, design and minor construction for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, which operates in a strategically important region for the U.S. military.

The Military Construction and VA spending bill also sets some funding levels for the following fiscal year. The bill allocates $195.8 billion for veterans’ benefits and $112.6 billion in discretionary programs in 2025.

Transportation-HUD 

The Transportation-HUD appropriations measure would appropriate about $89.5 billion in discretionary funding for the dozens of programs throughout the bill.

Another $8 billion in emergency funding was added to the legislation “to maintain current rental assistance for low income Americans amid a collapse in housing receipts that are used to help offset the cost of such assistance,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

The Department of Transportation would receive $27 billion in discretionary funding while another $79 billion would come from obligation limitations, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The Federal Aviation Administration would receive $20.1 billion, about $1 billion more than its current funding level. The money would allow the FAA to hire “1,800 new controllers, improving training facilities at the air traffic controller academy, and addressing the reliability of critical IT and telecommunications legacy systems,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Federal Highway Administration would receive $63 billion, the Federal Railroad Administration would get $2.9 billion and the Federal Transit Administration would receive $16 billion.

“To address the rail safety deficiencies identified in the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, the bill provides a $27.3 million increase for FRA’s safety and operations budget—meeting the President’s budget request for rail safety inspectors,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development would receive $70.1 billion that would go toward “rental assistance and self-sufficiency support for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities; housing and services to homeless individuals; and support for economic and community development,” according to the Senate Republican summary.

Homeless Assistance Grants would increase in funding by $418 million to $4.05 billion. Community Development Block Grants would receive $3.3 billion in funding.

The Native American Housing Block Grant program would receive $1.3 billion, a “historic level of funding” that would “make significant progress in addressing the dire housing needs of Indian Country, where residents are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty and nearly three times more likely to live in overcrowded conditions compared to other U.S. households,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Transportation-HUD bill includes 306 pages of community projects, or earmarks, making it one of the more significant bills for lawmakers to receive funding for priority initiatives.

Those include $1 million for the William Way LGBT Community Center in Philadelphia, one of three projects that House Republicans stripped out of their original bill in July after initially approving them.

The bill didn’t include funding for the LGBT Center of Greater Reading in Pennsylvania, which was originally selected for $970,000 in funding, or for affordable senior housing at LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc. in Massachusetts, which was on track for $850,000 in funding.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/05/five-months-late-congress-is-poised-to-pass-a-huge-chunk-of-federal-spending/feed/ 0
Trump’s calendar becoming crowded as legal battles escalate in New York, D.C. https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/trumps-calendar-becoming-crowded-as-legal-battles-escalate-in-new-york-d-c/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/trumps-calendar-becoming-crowded-as-legal-battles-escalate-in-new-york-d-c/#respond Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:30:30 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18954

Former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on Feb. 15, 2024, in New York City. Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records last year, which prosecutors say was an effort to hide a potential sex scandal, both before and after the 2016 presidential election (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump’s days fighting criminal charges in two courts could be arriving soon.

Special Counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday not to pause federal election interference proceedings and a New York state judge on Thursday set a late March trial date on charges related to hush money allegations.

If the New York trial date holds, it will mark the first time a former U.S. president has been put on trial, even as he campaigns to be returned to office.

In the District of Columbia, Smith in a brief to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked justices to deny Trump’s request to further delay proceedings in the case that alleges he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

A speedy trial is in the public’s interest and the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner’s claims of absolute immunity and protection under the impeachment clause lack the merit needed for the justices to grant a stay, Smith said.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” Smith wrote in the 40-page filing.

The Trump indictments: A seven-year timeline of key developments

Rather, the Supreme Court should treat Trump’s application for delay as a petition for the justices to speedily review and resolve the questions presented in the singular case, Smith said.

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith wrote.

If the justices decide to grant Trump’s request to stay trial proceedings, they should also immediately move to hear the immunity appeal and expedite that schedule, Smith said. He added that the court should set oral arguments in the case for March, “consistent with the Court’s expedition of other cases meriting such treatment.”

Case proceedings have been delayed for months as Trump’s request for criminal immunity has wound through the lower courts.

Smith underlined his own arguments for speed by filing his brief six days ahead of a deadline set by the Supreme Court.

New York trial to start March 25

That delay has not affected a separate criminal proceeding against Trump on New York state charges he falsified business records by paying hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 White House campaign.

That case is set to proceed to jury selection on March 25 under an order Judge Juan M. Merchan signed Thursday.

The judge overseeing the federal election interference case in the District of Columbia, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, had originally set March 4 as the start date for that trial. The charges stem from a four-count criminal indictment brought by a federal grand jury in August.

When Chutkan denied Trump’s immunity petition in early December, the former president appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Smith cites a ‘radical claim’

The three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously denied Trump’s request in a Feb. 6 opinion that found the former president’s arguments “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

On Monday, Trump asked the Supreme Court to pause all proceedings in district court while he petitions the appeals court to escalate his case to a full-judge panel — a move that Smith says holds no merit.

The unanimous appeals ruling, issued by the three judges who were appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, clearly signals that Trump’s “radical claim” will not be successful before a full appeals court, Smith argued.

“That position finds no support in constitutional text, separation-of-powers principles, history, or logic,” Smith wrote. “And if that radical claim were accepted, it would upend understandings about Presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law.”

Former presidents have long understood themselves to be subject to criminal prosecution following their terms, Smith said, meaning Trump’s argument that anything short of full immunity would cause untold damage to the power of the presidency should be rejected.

Even after President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal “removed any doubt” of a former president’s criminal liability, no president until Trump has claimed that fear of post-presidency prosecution had any impact on Oval Office decision-making, Smith said.

Watergate, which also dealt with a president’s unlawful attempts to remain in power, led to a criminal investigation and Nixon accepting a pardon for criminal activities arising from his conduct, Smith said.

“The Nation’s tradition is therefore clear: Presidential conduct that violates the criminal law to achieve the end of remaining in power may be subject to a prosecution.”

New York case 

A trial on the federal election interference charges — one of four criminal trials pending against Trump — has been delayed from its initial start date following a months-long detour on the immunity issue.

That delay has allowed another trial to likely be the first to open against the former president, the one in New York state court.

Following the Thursday hearing in the case, Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, to deny the charges and claim the state charges — as he says about all the criminal allegations he faces — are politically motivated.

“Just left the Courthouse in Manhattan,” Trump wrote. “Biden’s DOJ people have taken control of the case. There was NO CRIME, and almost all legal scholars are saying that. It’s Election Interference, the Dems 2024 way of cheating!”

Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

Trump also faces federal charges in South Florida that he improperly handled classified documents and refused to turn them over to authorities after he left office and state election interference charges in Georgia making similar allegations as the federal election interference case.

The Supreme Court heard another Trump case last week related to Colorado’s decision to remove him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The state’s Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump should be disqualified from the race under a provision of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment that bars insurrectionists from holding office.

A decision is expected soon.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/trumps-calendar-becoming-crowded-as-legal-battles-escalate-in-new-york-d-c/feed/ 0
Expanded child tax credit could be in place quickly if passed by Congress, IRS chief says https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/expanded-child-tax-credit-could-be-in-place-quickly-if-passed-by-congress-irs-chief-says/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/expanded-child-tax-credit-could-be-in-place-quickly-if-passed-by-congress-irs-chief-says/#respond Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:15:53 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18951

Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) speaks during a House Oversight Committee hearing related to the Justice Department's investigation of Hunter Biden, on Capitol Hill July 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Danny Werfel told lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday that his agency is “poised to move quickly” on a bipartisan tax bill that would temporarily expand the child tax credit and revive several corporate tax breaks.

But, he cautioned, taxpayers should not wait to file.

The Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act received overwhelming support in the U.S. House last month, in a  357-70 vote, and is now in the hands of the Senate, which has taken no action yet.

Werfel testified before the tax-writing U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, where lawmakers asked for his guarantee that, if enacted, taxpayers would see the benefits of the new law this filing season.

The IRS is “paying close attention” to the legislation’s progress, the commissioner told the lawmakers.

“We may be able to start implementations (as) early as six to 12 weeks after passage, depending on the bill’s final language, but taxpayers should not wait for this legislation to file their returns. We will take care of getting any additional refunds to taxpayers who have already filed. They won’t need to take additional steps,” Werfel said in his opening remarks.

If passed, the legislation would expand the child tax credit by incrementally raising the refundable portion cap — meaning how much families could see in a refund check — from $1,800 to $1,900 to $2,000 each tax year from 2023 to 2025.

In the realm of corporate tax cuts, the bill would extend several provisions from the 2017 tax law, many of which are winding down or have expired. Among them are reinstating full expensing for domestic research and development costs, allowing 100% bonus depreciation for equipment purchases and speeding up the time frame for certain business deductions.

No need for amended returns

During his questioning, Committee Chair Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican, asked Werfel to affirm that the IRS could handle the new changes with minimal disruption to the 2023 filing season.

“We worked with your team to make sure the bill did not place a new burden on taxpayers, and can be implemented without delay. Can you confirm that taxpayers do not need to file amended returns to obtain the adjustments the bill makes, further speeding things up?” Smith asked.

“Yes,” Werfel answered.

Both Smith and Werfel compared the workload to the swift system-wide adjustments the IRS had to make when the government issued stimulus checks and monthly child tax credit installments to taxpayers during pandemic relief efforts.

“The number of taxpayers affected here is a fraction of those affected in those other programs. Given that, can you confirm the administrative adjustments needed to implement the tax relief for (the) American Families and Workers Act are a much lighter lift for the IRS than for those other programs?” Smith asked.

“Yes,” Werfel said. “And Mr. Chairman, the work that we did to implement the payments that you referred (to), allowed us to build additional capacity to make us even more ready for this change.”

Werfel was sworn in as the 50th commissioner of the IRS in March. His term runs until 2027.

Status in the Senate

The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.

Senate Republicans, including Mike Crapo of Idaho, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, are taking issue with a child tax credit “look-back” provision for fear that it would decrease the program’s work incentives.

The provision would allow taxpayers to calculate their credit based on either this year’s or the previous year’s annual income, depending on which is higher.

Experts see the option as a safeguard of the family’s child tax credit against a sudden job loss, health issue or other situations that could interrupt steady work.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden of Oregon wants to “move as quickly as possible” on the bill, spokesman Ryan Carey told States Newsroom this month.

As of Feb. 11, no decisions had been made on a committee markup of the bill.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/16/expanded-child-tax-credit-could-be-in-place-quickly-if-passed-by-congress-irs-chief-says/feed/ 0
What happens next in the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas? https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/15/what-happens-next-in-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/15/what-happens-next-in-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas/#respond Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:50:52 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18944

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas holds a press conference at a U.S. Border Patrol station on Jan. 8, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas (John Moore/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is expected to head to trial later this month after House Republicans impeached Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday in a historic move against a sitting Cabinet member.

A special core set of impeachment rules that were last revised in the 1980s requires the body to consider resolutions containing impeachment articles that arrive from the House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office said Tuesday night the Democratic-controlled chamber will take action when it returns from recess on Feb. 26.

Senators will be sworn in as jurors the day after House impeachment managers deliver the articles of impeachment, Schumer’s office said, and Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, will preside.

The House voted 214-213 to impeach Mayorkas on two articles of impeachment, on a second try after an earlier vote on Feb. 6 failed 214-216.

What does the Senate do first?

According to the rules currently on the books, the Senate must act in some way when the articles of impeachment are presented.

For example, senators can follow the already established rules, vote to make new rules or even take a procedural step to dispose of the impeachment resolution.

But just like the Senate’s regular standing rules, the body’s impeachment trial rules are not “self-enforcing.”

“That means that if the Senate doesn’t move to consider the impeachment resolution and have a trial, if they just ignore it, a senator could raise a point of order to enforce them and then the Senate would have a vote on that point of order to decide whether or not they were going to honor their rules,” said James Wallner, senior fellow at the R Street Institute and and political science lecturer at Clemson University in South Carolina.

“But if a senator didn’t raise a point of order, and they all just ignored it, then the Senate could just ignore the rules. Of course, in a situation like this, that’s unlikely to happen,” said Wallner, who writes a helpful blog on what happens inside the halls of Congress.

Wallner was the executive director of the Senate Steering Committee during the chairmanships of GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and the now retired Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

“The takeaway is … they have to act in some way,” Wallner said.

The House lawmakers appointed by Republicans as their impeachment managers for the Mayorkas trial include GOP Reps. Mark Green of Tennessee, Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Ben Cline of Virginia, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, August Pfluger of Texas, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming and Laurel Lee of Florida.

What will the trial look like?

Schumer has already put to rest the question of the Senate’s initial steps on the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

However, because the core set of Senate impeachment rules leave a lot of unanswered questions, senators can chart their own course on the once rare but now more common impeachment trials — for example, how witnesses will be called, when motions are due, and so forth.

The body came up with specific supplementary rules for how to govern the 1999 impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton, and for the two impeachment trials of former President Donald Trump, in 2019 and 2021, Wallner said.

As long as the Senate waits until the trial is formally underway, any supplementary rules can be adopted by a simple majority.

That will be key for the Democrats who only hold the majority by a slim margin in the upper chamber.

During the first Trump impeachment in 2019, Republicans in the Senate crafted “extremely detailed” rules for the trial, said Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute, a Georgetown University-run program that offers courses about congressional proceedings to executive branch personnel and others.

The Republican majority decided “when the House would file their motions, when Trump’s team would respond to them, what dates this would happen, what times would this happen, when arguments would happen for these things, and then how much time would there be for questions, how much time was presentations by the House managers and by Trump’s team,” he said.

“And so it very tightly structured the trial, right. And it did not actually leave a lot of room for senators to sort of freelance and make motions,” Glassman said.

“The Democrats tried to amend this, to allow fresh witnesses to be brought in to be deposed or questioned, right, because they wanted additional evidence brought to bear, and the Republicans blocked those amendments,” Glassman said.

The option for a motion to dismiss can be included in the supplementary rules as a way to “short circuit” the trial, Glassman said.

What are Senate Democrats saying?

While Senate Democrats have not yet decided on their supplementary trial rules, Schumer’s office released a statement Tuesday night calling the impeachment vote a “sham” and a “new low for House Republicans.”

“This sham impeachment effort is another embarrassment for House Republicans. The one and only reason for this impeachment is for Speaker Johnson to further appease Donald Trump,” Schumer said, referring to Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana.

As for a timeline, once the trial is underway the Senate’s core impeachment rules state that the chamber remains in session “from day to day … after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered.”

Glassman points out that the Senate “has routinely used unanimous consent to conduct all sorts of other business during impeachment trials.” The Senate can also structure its rules to make time for other legislative business, as needed, he adds.

A conviction in a Senate impeachment trial requires a two-thirds vote.

How rare is this?

The last Cabinet secretary to be impeached was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. The secretary, a former Iowa state legislator, was known for throwing lavish parties on a meager government salary and was eventually found out for his corrupt behavior, which involved taking kickbacks.

According to Senate records, Belknap relinquished his post just before the House voted to impeach him, which technically makes Mayorkas the first sitting Cabinet member to be impeached.

Despite Belknap’s exit, the Senate proceeded with a trial.

Belknap’s unique situation of no longer serving in government but being on trial in the Senate anyhow was a topic of discussion as the Senate in 2021 conducted its impeachment trial of Trump after he left office.

Circumstances aside, impeachment and Senate trials are overall rare, Wallner said.

“They’ve only impeached a handful of people in the House. They’ve only had trials for a handful of people in the Senate. It’s just this is a rare power to begin with,” Wallner said.

“… And I mean, I think to the extent that it is becoming more common today, I think that’s the more interesting story, not so much (that it’s happening) to a Cabinet official, but more to how we conduct our politics.”

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/15/what-happens-next-in-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas/feed/ 0
Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to pause federal trial over presidential immunity question https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/12/trump-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/12/trump-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question/#respond Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:54:38 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18902

President Donald Trump speaks on stage during a campaign rally at the Target Center on Oct. 10, 2019 in Minneapolis (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to further delay his federal criminal trial on charges he attempted to subvert the 2020 election, contending his actions were protected by presidential immunity.

In a 40-page application to the Supreme Court late Monday, Trump and his attorneys asked the justices to pause pretrial activities in federal district court for the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith accusing Trump of lying to and encouraging supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021 and attacked the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s application comes just days after the Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a separate case involving the former president, this time about whether Colorado could bar him from the 2024 presidential primary ballot because he violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The justices met the argument with skepticism.

Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, plans to challenge a three-judge panel appeals court ruling last week that said he could not claim presidential immunity to escape the criminal charges accusing him of conspiring to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump’s team said in the Monday application that they plan to appeal “en banc,” meaning to the full D.C. Circuit appeals court, and also to the U.S. Supreme Court, “if necessary,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Smith had asked the Supreme Court in December to fast-track Trump’s immunity question, essentially leapfrogging the federal appeals process, but the justices declined the request.

The brief cited Trump’s schedule ahead of November’s presidential election, saying a long trial would keep him off the campaign trail and deprive “tens of millions of American voters, who are entitled to hear President Trump’s campaign message as they decide how to cast their ballots.”

“Conducting a months-long criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the Special Counsel’s persistent demands for expedition,” Trump’s lawyers said.

A majority of justices would have to vote to grant a stay for it to take effect.

Immunity argument

Trump is likely to win a high court case, his lawyers said Monday, because he was representing an essential aspect of presidential power. Allowing presidents to be prosecuted would create a constant threat of prosecution for every future president, making the job virtually unmanageable.

“This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decisionmaking, undermining the President’s independence,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”

All the allegations in the four-count indictment stemmed from actions Trump took in his official capacity as president as a good-faith effort to reverse widespread election fraud, the brief said.

Prosecutors say Trump knew there was not determinative voter fraud, but nonetheless pressured state officials, Department of Justice leaders, Vice President Mike Pence, and others to illegally use the claim to overturn the election results.

The pressure campaign eventually led to the deadly storming of the Capitol by Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, according to prosecutors and the U.S. House committee that investigated the matter.

Shortly after he left office, the U.S. House impeached Trump for his role in the attack. But with only seven Republican senators joining all Democrats in voting to convict Trump, the former president was acquitted in a Senate trial.

That should also protect Trump from court prosecution under the principle of double jeopardy that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime, Trump’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court.

Four of the Supreme Court’s nine justices would have to agree to hear the case. Trump appointed three of them.

Original trial date postponed

Although Trump has not succeeded in having the case thrown out over presidential immunity, the issue has gobbled up months of court time and delayed his trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is the trial judge in the case, said last month she would postpone the original trial start date of March 4. She has not set a new date.

In October, Trump made a pretrial motion to throw out the charges based on his presidential immunity theory.

Chutkan denied the motion, and Trump appealed her decision to the D.C. Circuit.

A panel of the appeals court ruled last week to uphold Chutkan’s decision, and gave Trump until Monday to take the case to the Supreme Court.

In early January, Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer argued before federal appeals judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs that the former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because presidents cannot be tried for “official acts” taken while in office.

When asked by the judges about hypothetical criminal acts including ordering the assassination of a political rival or selling military secrets, Sauer notably argued that if presidents are not impeached and convicted, they would be immune from criminal prosecution.

In the unanimous unsigned federal appeals opinion on Feb. 6, the judges dismissed Trump’s arguments as “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” they wrote.

The three-judge federal appeals panel comprised appointees from both Democrat and Republican administrations — Henderson, appointed by George H.W. Bush, and both Pan and Childs were appointed by President Joe Biden.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/12/trump-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question/feed/ 0
Congress is looking at expanding the child tax credit again. Who would benefit? https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/09/congress-is-looking-at-expanding-the-child-tax-credit-again-who-would-benefit/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/09/congress-is-looking-at-expanding-the-child-tax-credit-again-who-would-benefit/#respond Fri, 09 Feb 2024 20:43:28 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18867

Sixteen-month-old Finn Marmaud leaves daycare with his mother, Kayla, on April 24, 2023, in St. Joseph (Erin Woodiel/Missouri Independent).

WASHINGTON — The bipartisan tax package passed by the U.S. House last month is not a done deal, but the proposal’s supporters say it could restore some poverty-reducing benefits that reached millions under the pandemic-era child tax credit expansion.

A majority of low-income families who do not currently qualify for the full credit would see some increase just within the first year of the three-year deal, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The center estimates within the initial year of the legislation, if enacted, 16 million of the 19 million children in low-income households that don’t receive the full credit because of low earnings would benefit.

States topping the list of where those children live include California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan, in that order.

“This is really Congress’ only shot this year to pass legislation that would substantially boost the incomes of millions of low-income families and substantially lower child poverty,” said Stephanie Hingtgen, research analyst for the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A successful bipartisan, bicameral legislative package would be a rare win for both lawmakers and the administration, particularly during an election year. Many of those parents who would see gains live in key 2024 swing states.

The CBPP’s analysis calculates that roughly 400,000 children would be lifted above the poverty line within the first year. The overall benefits would reach families across race and ethnicity, and would particularly help families in low-income rural areas, according to an additional report.

Hingtgen found that families of 2.5 million children in rural areas would see an increase in the first year. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas would each see more than 100,000 children benefit in their respective rural communities, she reported.

Both Democrats and Republicans tout the deal, dubbed the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, as a compromise because it would expand the child tax credit while extending Trump-era corporate tax incentives through 2025.

Increasing child tax credit benefits has been a rallying cry for Democrats since the temporary pandemic-era expansion for 2021 lifted more than 2 million children out of poverty, according to census data.

Recent history of the child tax credit

The tax break amount per child was doubled under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, from up to $1,000 to up to $2,000 per child under age 17. The actual refundable portion of that credit for 2023 — meaning how much a parent could see in a refund check after his or her tax liability — is capped at $1,600.

However, low-income earners hardly ever hit the full refund amount because it phases in at 15% on the dollar for earned income above $2,500. Households that earn less do not even qualify.

As the current law stands, a single parent with two children would need to earn about $29,000 annually to receive the full credit, or about $34,000 for married parents, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Families with more than two children would need an even higher annual income level to realize the full credit.

As the U.S. was digging out from under the COVID-19 economic fallout, Congress approved a one-year expansion of the tax credit to $3,000 per child under age 18, and $3,600 for those under age 6 — even for families who made $0 to $2500 in income. Lawmakers made the entire amount refundable, and a portion of it was sent to families in monthly installments.

Advocates hailed the research findings that showed the temporary move was a game changer for poverty in the U.S.

Hope for low-income earners?

The changes under negotiation in Congress right now contain several advantages for low- earning parents: For one, the refundable portion of the credit would increase incrementally over the 2023, 2024 and 2025 tax years — from $1,800 to $1,900 to $2,000.

Secondly, parents could use their current or previous year’s income to calculate their tax credit — what tax experts call a “look-back” approach — and therefore maximize their refund checks. That way, if a parent or couple falls on hard times because of job loss or illness, they can choose to use a previous year’s higher income on their tax return when claiming the credit.

Third, the credit would phase in at 15% per dollar per child on earnings above $2,500, therefore allowing bigger families to reach the full credit faster (as illustrated in a helpful table from the Tax Policy Center).

“For example, a family that consists of a married couple with three children — one parent earns $32,000 as a farm worker, while the other parent stays at home to care for their two younger kids, while their older one is in school — I mean, under the expansion, the family would get about $1,900 per child for a total of $5,800. And that is an increase of almost $1,000 compared to current law,” Hingtgen said.

“So that’s real money that the family can use to help buy food, clothes or school materials for their children.”

Senate GOP opposition

While the legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. House on Jan. 31 when it passed in a 357-70 vote, the deal is hitting opposition from some Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate.

Several, including GOP Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Finance, hope to make “necessary changes to build support,” as Crapo stated after the lower chamber’s vote.

Both Crapo and Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told reporters that one of their top concerns is the “look-back” provision that would allow parents to use prior-year earnings, according to comments the senators made during hallway interviews compiled by Crapo’s office.

Researchers at the American Enterprise Institute published a paper in January warning that the option for parents to calculate their eligibility using their current earnings or the prior year’s income “would have important impacts on the labor market that require further study before being considered for passage by Congress.”

According to the AEI’s analysis, the every-other-year change would “lead over 700,000 parents to stop working.” At the same time, the change would double the work incentive for a minority of caregivers who don’t work in a two-year period and “lead 395,000 parents to start working,” write the researchers Kevin Corinth, Angela Rachidi, Matt Weidinger, and Scott Winship.

Hingtgen refutes that argument.

“The credit as a whole is only going to families that have earnings, and the look-back provision is only applying to people who have a history of earnings, so it is really not a concern,” she said.

Coupling the expansion with corporate tax breaks

Other criticism of the deal is aimed at the “horsetrading” that lawmakers are characterizing as compromise, according to the group Patriotic Millionaires.

Alongside the child tax credit expansion, the legislation revives corporate tax breaks that are winding down or expired under the 2017 tax law.

Among them is a provision that allows companies to expense purchases, for example a $30 million piece of equipment, in the first taxable year rather than getting a deduction over a multi-year period, as was previous law.

Patriotic Millionaires, a group of high-net-worth individuals who lobby Congress on tax policy, calls this “a lopsided trade.”

“Those tax cuts are going into the pockets of America’s very, very rich,” said Bob Lord, the group’s senior adviser on tax policy. “… There shouldn’t have to be ransom paid to America’s super rich every time we want to help poor children.”

A timeframe on when the tax deal could receive a vote in the Senate is unclear.

If opposing senators let the upper chamber’s legislative clock run out on the deal this year, the lawmakers will not be able to escape looming tax policy negotiations as the Trump-era tax law further winds down in 2025.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is in regular talks with colleagues and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, according to committee staff.

“No decisions have been made at this point with respect to a markup or floor process, but obviously Senator Wyden’s goal is to move as quickly as possible to get the expanded CTC out to kids and families who qualify,” said Ryan Carey, committee spokesperson.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/09/congress-is-looking-at-expanding-the-child-tax-credit-again-who-would-benefit/feed/ 0
Trump claim of presidential immunity turned down by federal appeals court in D.C. https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/trump-claim-of-presidential-immunity-turned-down-by-federal-appeals-court-in-d-c/ Tue, 06 Feb 2024 16:30:49 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=18794

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 4, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for charges he schemed to overturn the 2020 election, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, rejecting Trump’s argument he was immune from criminal prosecution for any alleged conduct during his presidential term.

In a unanimous opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel denied Trump’s request to throw out the federal charges accusing him of lying to and encouraging supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump and his attorneys argued the case should be dismissed because Trump was acting in his official capacity as president and that allowing a president to be sued would have disastrous consequences.

The court found those arguments were “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” Tuesday’s unsigned opinion said. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

Trump is expected to appeal the ruling, either to the full D.C. Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a process that could take months while he continues his campaign as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Neither court is required to take the case, but exercising his appellate options will help Trump extend the case, potentially beyond Election Day, although Trump and his legal team have not explicitly said it is part of their strategy to delay the case as long as possible.

Further appeals

The full D.C. Circuit is “highly unlikely” to hear a further appeal of the presidential immunity ruling, according to legal experts Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb, who wrote an outline of potential timelines in the case for Just Security, a site devoted to foreign policy, democracy and security analysis, that published Jan. 9.

The Supreme Court is also “unlikely” to hear an appeal, they wrote.

Trump brought the appeal from a trial court in D.C., where he faces federal charges related to the 2021 attack on the Capitol. An investigation by special counsel Jack Smith resulted in a four-count indictment last year accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The indictment accuses Trump of working with a group of co-conspirators to recruit false slates of electors, lying to the public about non-existent determinative election fraud and encouraging supporters to obstruct the election certification in a violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump raised a so-called presidential immunity defense in the trial court, saying he could not be prosecuted for the actions alleged in the indictment because he was acting in his official capacity as president to counteract election fraud.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied that claim, a decision Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On Friday, Chutkan also officially postponed his trial, which had been set to begin March 4.

Hours before the three-judge panel issued its ruling, Trump posted in all capital letters on his online platform, Truth Social, that “IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY.”

“WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!” he wrote.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

]]>
U.S. Senate panel examines quality, costs of assisted living centers https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/25/u-s-senate-panel-examines-quality-costs-of-assisted-living-centers/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/25/u-s-senate-panel-examines-quality-costs-of-assisted-living-centers/#respond Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:14:13 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18634

The U.S. Senate Committee on Aging is gathering information to assess conditions and costs at assisted living centers (Getty Images).

 

WASHINGTON — Bipartisan U.S. senators are sounding the alarm on cost, workforce shortages and dangerous incidents at assisted living facilities across the country as the needs of aging Americans are forecast to sharply increase.

Sen. Bob Casey, chair of the Senate Committee on Aging, led a hearing Thursday to highlight the panel’s fact finding mission. Unlike nursing homes, assisted living care is largely unregulated at the federal level.

“It is long past time for Congress to re-examine this model and ensure that it’s meeting our nation’s needs,” the Pennsylvania Democrat said in his opening remarks.

Citing a recent survey that found 80% of adults would not be able to afford four years in an assisted living facility, Casey appealed directly to the public to share their experiences.

“I want to hear from you about the true cost of assisted living,” Casey said, holding a sign that urged people to submit stories to aging.senate.gov/assistedlivingbills.

“I think it’s very important that we hear from people — hear from people about their own experience as family members, as people who are paying the bill and also expecting the promises that are made when someone becomes a resident of an assisted living facility,” Casey said.

“It is only by hearing those stories, only by hearing about those experiences, can we bring the needed change that I know we all agree has to come.”

Residents and family members recall poor care

Among those who testified was a Virginia woman who said she witnessed alarming situations due to short staffing and poor training in a facility where her husband lived with Lewy Body Dementia.

Patty Vessenmeyer, of Gainesville, Virginia, described an “extremely loud” central group room at the facility and finding a resident “bloody and staggering down a hallway” after she tripped on a raised area of the floor covered by a rug.

“A company knowledgeable about dementia care would not design a facility this way,” she said.

She also told lawmakers about having to break up a physical altercation when one resident was beating another with his cane, and of finding her husband had soiled himself when staff was not around to help him reach the bathroom.

Without identifying the Warrenton, Virginia, facility, Vessenmeyer told the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Mike Braun, that the base cost for her husband’s room was $7,900 a month, but that her monthly bill eventually totaled $13,000.

“That sounds unaffordable,” Braun, an Indiana Republican, said.

“If he hadn’t passed away rather quickly … it would have used up all of my nest egg,” Vessenmeyer said.

“That’s the kind of stuff I’ve been appalled by,” Braun responded.

Jennifer Craft Morgan, director of the Gerontology Institute at the University of Georgia, told the panel that assisted living costs across the nation average $4,500 a month, making it “inaccessible to most Americans.”

In addition to breaking down cost barriers, Morgan recommended the industry consistently educate and train workers, reward companies that deliver high-quality care, and standardize monitoring and resources to increase state-based oversight and transparency.

Cost and care vary by state

But care is not as costly in all states, and operators can choose to go beyond state requirements, Julie Simpkins, co-president of Gardant Management Solutions, told the lawmakers.

The Illinois-based company is the fifth largest assisted living care provider in the U.S. Gardant operates services aimed at low-income seniors in Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio and West Virginia.

Simpkins told Braun that in states like Illinois and Indiana, low-income families see limited out-of-pocket expenses because of the states’ arrangements with federal Medicaid waiver programs.

When asked if that situation stretches across the country for low- and middle-income families, Simpkins told Braun: “Nationally, there needs to be programs in each state to provide access to affordable assisted living. They’re not all there yet.”

Simpkins also testified that Gardant’s facilities exceed state requirements “when we believe it is in the best interest of our residents.”

Those instances include immediately reporting to the state when residents wander out of the facilities, a situation the industry calls “elopement.”

“Even something as technical as a resident walking out the door and instantly returning with a staff member — we know they didn’t leave our community and our staff immediately addressed the situation, but we still report it,” Simpkins said.

Another example, Simpkins said, is that every employee at Gardant’s memory care facilities trains beyond the required levels to become certified dementia practitioners.

Debate over national standards 

Still, “it’s important to note that every state, every community, and every resident is different,” Simpkins said in her testimony.

“Efforts to standardize all assisted living communities would be both unworkable and irresponsible for resident care,” she said.

Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition in New York City, disagreed.

As needs of aging adults have evolved since assisted living dawned in the 1980s, Mollot advocates for national standards and a national database of assisted living caregivers and companies.

“The absence of any federal quality or safety standards, coupled with a virtual absence of reliable public information on the quality, safety and cost of assisted living, have made assisted living a sector ripe for investment by sophisticated private enterprises who can shuffle around resources and take profits with little regard to the promises made to seniors and their family,” Mollot said in his opening statement.

Later, during questioning, Mollot told Casey: “Essentially, there’s no independent validated information on assisted living for the consumers, for policymakers, or for the general public. So families, as you noted, have to rely on facilities and facility marketing materials.”

Casey responded to Mollot, saying he thinks it’s “pretty fundamental that people should have the opportunity to place reliance upon a source that is objective and, to use your word, independent.”

Braun also criticized Simpkins’ argument against standardization, particularly when it comes to transparency.

“I don’t know how you could say that wouldn’t be good,” he said to Simpkins.

“I’ve been the most vocal senator that our health care system is broken,” Braun later continued. “We do not have transparency. We do not have competition.

“It’s kind of almost like an unregulated utility and you get your bill after you had a significant health care scrape or a bad accident. You gotta hold your breath to see how much it’s gonna cost or if you can afford it,” he said.

Looking ahead

The hearing did not focus on pushing a particular piece of legislation forward. Rather, the senators said they will be gathering information to assess the industry.

Casey touted the letters he penned in mid-January to the three largest corporate assisted living care operators, including Atria Senior Living based in Louisville, Kentucky; Brookdale Senior Living in Brentwood, Tennessee; and Sunrise Senior Living in McLean, Virginia.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker also announced he was joining colleagues in requesting that the Government Accountability Office study how much federal money is spent on assisted living facilities, what those facilities are charging families and whether or not they make their charges easily known.

Democratic Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Mark Kelly of Arizona and Raphael Warnock of Georgia co-signed the letter to GAO.

 

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/25/u-s-senate-panel-examines-quality-costs-of-assisted-living-centers/feed/ 0
UAW delivers rousing presidential endorsement for Biden over ‘scab’ Trump https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/uaw-delivers-rousing-presidential-endorsement-for-biden-over-scab-trump/ Wed, 24 Jan 2024 22:37:37 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=18617

President Joe Biden, alongside UAW President Shawn Fain, speaks on the UAW picket line at Willow Run Redistribution Center in Belleville, Mich., Sept. 26, 2023 (Official White House photo).

WASHINGTON — The United Auto Workers of America endorsed the re-election of President Joe Biden Wednesday, just months after he became the first sitting U.S. president to walk a picket line with striking autoworkers in Michigan.

Speaking at the UAW’s biannual political conference in Washington, D.C., Biden told the crowd “I was so damn proud to stand on that picket line with you” — a moment that seemed to lock in the union’s coveted endorsement, crucial in the swing state of Michigan.

The president delivered the keynote address to hundreds of UAW leaders one day after winning a write-in campaign in the New Hampshire primary, where former President Donald Trump scored a second win for the Republican side.

“If I’m gonna be in a fight, I want to be in a fight with you, the UAW,” Biden told the crowd at the Marriott Marquis in downtown D.C. “I mean it, we have a big fight in front of us. We’re fundamentally changing the economy of this country, and everybody’s getting a little worried about it, the very powerful.”

In a rousing endorsement speech to his members, UAW President Shawn Fain laid out a binary scenario for November.

“Rarely as a union do you get so clear of a choice between two candidates,” Fain said at the conference themed “Stand Up For Our Future,” a nod to the union’s historic “Stand Up” strike in September against the nation’s three big automakers.

“It’s not about who you like, it’s not about your party, it’s not about this b—– about age. It’s not about anything but our best shot at taking back power for the working class,” Fain said.

“Donald Trump is a scab,” Fain said to loud applause and whistling. “Donald Trump is a billionaire and that’s who he represents. If Donald Trump ever worked in an auto plant, he wouldn’t be a UAW member. He’d be a company man, trying to squeeze the American autoworker.

“Donald Trump stands against everything the UAW stands for. When you go back to our core issues — Wages. Retirement. Health care. Time. That’s what this election is about,” Fain said.

The union’s board voted unanimously to endorse Biden, Fain told reporters after the event.

When asked if he spoke to Trump before issuing the endorsement, Fain said he didn’t think there was a need.

“Because I know what he said, I know what his track record has been. And he has never stood for working class people. And, you know, talk is cheap, actions speak louder. We saw what he did prior to being president. We saw what he did when he was president, and what he continues to do.”

Biden’s support of UAW strikers

UAW workers walked off the job in September after contract negotiations with Ford Motor Company, Stellantis and General Motors collapsed. The labor dispute stretched across more than 20 states, with Michigan at the epicenter.

Fain invited Biden to address the striking workers on Sept. 26 in the Detroit suburb of Belleville, where the president told them, “You deserve what you’ve earned, and you’ve earned a hell of a lot more than what you’re getting paid now.”

Trump delivered remarks a day later at a non-unionized auto parts manufacturer in Macomb County, an event he planned to counter the second televised Republican presidential debate.

There he asked for support, saying “hopefully your leaders at the United Auto Workers will endorse Donald Trump,” despite the event being unaffiliated with the labor organization.

Fain and Biden on Wednesday both recounted the former president’s speech at the non-union location during one of the largest labor strikes in recent U.S. history.

The strike ended in November after the union struck agreements with the three big automakers.

Fain also faulted Trump for what he described as disparaging comments about the recovery of the auto industry after the 2008 financial collapse and said Trump “stood by” as the General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio, closed in 2019.

“Instead of talking trash about our union, Joe Biden stood with us,” Fain said.

The UAW leader told reporters that he expects his membership to engage in political actions like rallying, door knocking and phone banking in the coming year.

Israel-Hamas

When asked if he had concerns about Biden not calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, Fain said “the alternative’s even worse. Trump moved the (Israeli) embassy when he was president. Obviously he’s not going to do anything.”

The UAW has formally called for a ceasefire, and Fain said the union will continue to do so.

A handful of protesters unfurled a Palestinian flag and shouted “ceasefire now” during Biden’s speech Wednesday. Biden paused briefly as large swaths of the crowd began shouting “UAW” to drown out the protesters as security escorted them out of the room.

Fain said he was not concerned about members “exercising their voice.” It was the second day in a row that protesters interrupted a Biden event.

Other union endorsements

In addition to the UAW’s endorsement, Biden has picked up several others, including from the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the United Farm Workers, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Teachers.

As of Wednesday evening Trump’s campaign had not released a statement in response to the UAW’s endorsement of Biden.

However, the campaign released images of September posts on X by @TeamTrump stating that “PRESIDENT TRUMP is a great champion of American workers. He SAVED the American auto industry once, and he will do it again.”

On Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform where he posts daily, the former president had only posted Wednesday about his caucus and primary wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He also posted in all capital letters Wednesday just before 4 p.m. Eastern: “MASSIVE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY CROOKED JOE AND THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AGAINST HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT!”

]]>
Bipartisan deal to expand child tax credit, revive business tax breaks advances in Congress https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/19/bipartisan-deal-to-expand-child-tax-credit-revive-business-tax-breaks-advances-in-congress/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/19/bipartisan-deal-to-expand-child-tax-credit-revive-business-tax-breaks-advances-in-congress/#respond Fri, 19 Jan 2024 22:58:14 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18558

U.S. Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri delivers remarks during a House Oversight Committee hearing on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

The tax policymakers of the GOP-led U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means voted 40-3 to send the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, or H.R. 7024, to the House for a full floor vote.

The Biden administration is “encouraged” and “pleased” with the committee’s vote, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday.

The framework, co-led by House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith of Missouri and Senate Committee on Finance Chair Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, includes both parties’ priorities to address child poverty and expired Trump-era tax breaks.

After four-and-a-half hours of debate and several attempts by Democrats to revive, at least in part, more generous pandemic-era child tax credit benefits, the panel placed its near-unanimous stamp of approval on the major tax deal.

After casting her vote, Washington state Democrat Suzan DelBene said the legislation “is an imperfect bill in many ways but that is the reality of divided government.”

“It nevertheless includes several provisions that I have long advocated for that would help support workers and families and grow our economy. That is why I voted to advance the package, but there is still more we can do,” she said in a statement.

Details on child tax credit changes

The bill, if eventually enacted into law, would increase the child tax credit incrementally for the taxable years 2023 through 2025, and adjust the credit for inflation.

The amounts would increase from $1,800 in 2023, to $1,900 in 2024 and $2,000 in 2025.

Under current tax law, parents can only receive up to $1,600 back per child.

The bill also aims to restore tax credits for low-income housing construction.

As for reviving expired business tax incentives, the bill would reinstate full expensing for domestic research and development costs and 100% bonus depreciation for equipment purchases, and speed up the timeframe during which companies can deduct certain costs.

Other incentives include tax relief for victims of qualifying wildfires after 2014, and for those who suffered losses as a result of the February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

The legislation also aims to establish tax incentives that encourage more business between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Smith said Friday the bill is a product of more than a decade of discussion on how “to reform the tax code in a way that supports workers, families, and small businesses.”

“The bill before us today represents bipartisan policies that are proven and effective, common sense fixes to the tax code that will rebuild our communities, support better jobs and wages, and grow our economy. Many members on both sides of this committee are cosponsors of the different policies in this legislation,” Smith said in his opening remarks.

Paid for by ending another tax break

The three-year deal is expected to be entirely paid for by cutting off a COVID-19 tax break for businesses who retained employees during the pandemic.

While businesses originally had until April 15, 2025 to claim the tax credit, the new legislation would end the program on Jan. 31 of this year, essentially stopping the flow of claims that have recently gained extra popularity.

Smith said in his remarks that the program “has become overrun with fraud and ballooned in cost six times larger than (Congressional Budget Office’s) original estimate.”

That change is expected to save the government an estimated $79 billion, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The Business Roundtable, an organization representing American CEOs, has been lobbying for the bill and praised the “strong bipartisan vote” as an “important step toward restoring three pro-growth tax policies essential to America’s competitiveness.”

Florida’s Rep. Vern Buchanan, a business owner, said restoring a business’ ability to fully expense as well as loosening interest deductibility rules is “huge.”

“I can tell you for small businesses, that deduction makes a big difference and (owners) can hang on (to) a little bit more of what they earn, and use that to expand and grow their business,” the Florida Republican said.

Fellow Floridian Greg Steube said he’s been “working tirelessly” for tax relief on disaster payments, with a particular focus on Hurricane Ian, which brought massive and expensive damage to the Sunshine State in 2022.

“Today we can move one step closer to providing real relief,” said Steube, a Republican.

Warnings and opposition

Although the organization praised the bipartisan, bicameral bill structured to offset its own cost, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned that the policies “would add significantly to the already massive federal debt” if extended beyond their 2025 expiration dates.

If extended, the child tax credit would cost $180 billion, and the business tax incentives $525 billion, through 2033, according to the analysis by the CRFB.

And while most of the panel’s minority members supported the legislation, more than a dozen expressed concern during the bill’s markup that the child tax credit expansion still does not meet the needs of low-income families.

DelBene’s amendment to return the tax credit to full refundability, as it was under temporary COVID-19 changes, was unsuccessful.

Full refundability means the earned income threshold, $2,500, would drop to $0, giving access to the poorest families.

DelBene also proposed returning the tax credit payments to monthly installments, as it was during the pandemic, and raising the amount per child to $3,000, and $3,600 for each kid under age 6.

The amendment was voted down 18-25, among the amendments of several of her colleagues.

After the pandemic-era temporary increase illustrated significant reductions in child poverty, Democrats have been pushing to expand, and specifically make the credit permanent.

Several Republicans disagreed with DelBene’s amendment, wanting instead “to stick to the deal that has been struck,” said Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska.

“The amendment would chip away at or destroy what has been a hard-won compromise,” he said.

Rep. Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the markup was a “missed opportunity” to make changes to the child tax credit. The panel defeated her amendment to increase the percentage at which the credit is earned, to 40%.

The child tax credit phases in at 15% of a household’s income, meaning that lower earners might not achieve the maximum credit amount in one year, depending on wage and hours.

“This is not supposed to be a work program, it’s supposed to recognize the expensive cost of raising kids and wanting them to have the proper development, health, and education,” Moore said.

Moore was one of three no votes, along with Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Linda Sanchez of California.

The House returns Jan. 29.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/19/bipartisan-deal-to-expand-child-tax-credit-revive-business-tax-breaks-advances-in-congress/feed/ 0
No deal on Ukraine, Israel aid after White House meeting with top congressional leaders https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/18/no-deal-on-ukraine-israel-aid-after-white-house-meeting-with-top-congressional-leaders/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/18/no-deal-on-ukraine-israel-aid-after-white-house-meeting-with-top-congressional-leaders/#respond Thu, 18 Jan 2024 13:26:34 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18525

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, center, speaks to reporters after a White House meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2024, about supplemental aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and U.S. border security. At left is Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, and at right is Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden’s White House gathering with lawmakers to find a compromise on foreign aid and immigration was “productive,” U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday, but a deal has still not been reached.

Biden hosted congressional leaders and other lawmakers to discuss the administration’s stalled $106 billion national security supplemental request, which includes aid for Ukraine and Israel.

Senate Republicans have refused to support the White House request, which was sent to Capitol Hill in October, unless new policies curbing asylum and parole are attached. And House GOP leadership has insisted changes resemble their border security bill dubbed H.R. 2, which passed in the lower chamber on a party-line vote in May.

“We understand that there’s concern about the safety, security, sovereignty of Ukraine, but the American people have those same concerns about our own domestic sovereignty and our safety and our security,” Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said after the meeting.

Republican lawmakers have been focused on immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border as arrivals have increased, and as the party’s 2024 presidential front-runner, former President Donald Trump, campaigns on the issue, often using terms like “invasion.”

More than a dozen key committee chairs and ranking members joined House and Senate leaders Wednesday in talks with the administration’s top national security and budget officials, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Office of Management Budget Director Shalanda Young.

Parts of the meeting were classified, according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

Biden used the meeting to underscore “the importance of Congress ensuring Ukraine has the resources it needs — including air defense and artillery capabilities — to defend itself against Russia’s brutal invasion,” according to a readout of the discussion provided by the White House.

“The President discussed the strategic consequences of inaction for Ukraine, the United States, and the world. He was clear: Congress’s continued failure to act endangers the United States’ national security, the NATO Alliance, and the rest of the free world,” the readout stated.

Biden also told lawmakers “we must act now to address challenges at the border.”

The president is “encouraged” by bipartisan negotiations in the Senate and urged Congress to “swiftly” pass his full request, according to the readout.

‘We need the questions answered’

Johnson, speaking to reporters outside the White House after the meeting, said he spoke to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in December and heard from the leader that “the necessary ingredient is the proper weapons systems that they need.”

“There are certain things that are needed to ensure that they can prevail,” Johnson continued. “We need the questions answered about the strategy, about the endgame, and about the accountability for the precious treasure of the American people.”

Still, he said, “we must insist that the border be the top priority. I think we have some consensus around that table. Everyone understands the urgency of that.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaking outside the White House shortly after Johnson, described a “very positive meeting” and a “large amount of agreement around the table that we must do Ukraine, and we must do border.”

Schumer said both parties agreed that helping Ukraine is “essential” and that a loss for that nation “would be nothing short of devastating.”

“The only way we will do border and Ukraine, or even either of them, is (by being) bipartisan,” said Schumer, a New York Democrat. “You cannot – cannot – do things with one party in a divided Congress. And so anyone who says, any party that says ‘do it my way or no way,’ we’re not going to get anything done.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking back at the Capitol after the meeting, said he thought it was a “good idea” to get both Democratic and Republican lawmakers together.

“We had a really constructive discussion about the supplemental, which we anticipate will be on the floor next week,” McConnell said. “We’ve been talking about this for a very long time. It’s time to try to act.”

McConnell said he believes negotiators are “close” to brokering a bipartisan agreement on border security and immigration policy changes.

Such a deal would allow the Senate to move forward with the emergency spending package that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and U.S. border enforcement agencies.

“It’s not going to get better in my opinion until you actually say, ‘We’re going to it next week.’ And I think that’s the view of the majority leader,” McConnell said.

Schumer didn’t commit to putting the bill on the floor for a vote next week, but said once there is an agreement the body will move “very quickly.”

“I am more optimistic than ever before that we can come to an agreement. I put the chances a little bit greater than half now,” he said after the meeting.

Negotiations over border security are being headed by Sen. James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona. The trio has been working to strike a deal with the White House since before Christmas.

Earlier Wednesday

Before leaving for the meeting, McConnell brushed aside disparaging comments from House GOP leaders about Senate negotiations on border and immigration policy, noting that if Republicans controlled the government, they likely wouldn’t get a single Democratic vote for the types of policies being discussed.

“This is a unique opportunity to accomplish something in divided government that wouldn’t be there under unified (Republican) government,” McConnell said. “So we’re hoping to get a credible border package.”

McConnell later noted during that press conference whatever the Senate eventually passes could actually garner Biden’s signature. He also suggested that the two chambers could go to conference to reconcile their differences.

Murphy said during a press conference before the White House meeting that while he’s not yet optimistic about the negotiations, he agrees with Schumer “that we are closer than we have ever been before.”

“Our goal is to give the executive branch more tools to better manage the border while living up to our values as a nation of immigrants,” Murphy said. “This is the most complicated area of American statute, so it’s not surprising that it’s taking us some time to work out the final few issues and get those resolved into text.”

Ahead of the meeting with Biden, Johnson said that he would continue to seek “answers to critical questions” about Ukraine.

“… But before we even talk about Ukraine, I am going to tell the president what I’m telling all of you and we’ve told the American people: Border, border, border. We have to take care of our own house. We have to secure our own border before we talk about doing anything else,” Johnson told reporters during the House Republicans’ weekly press conference.

When asked to respond to Johnson’s comments, White House National Security Council spokesman Adm. John Kirby said, “Today’s meeting is about Ukraine. That’s what we’re going to focus on in that discussion.”

“I would remind (Johnson) that since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in February ‘22 we have provided multiple classified and unclassified briefings to members of Congress,” Kirby also said.

The U.S. provided its latest aid package to Ukraine in late December, and the administration said that was the final assistance available until Congress approves new aid.

Kirby said Ukraine continues to go through its stockpiles of artillery shells and rockets “at a pretty advanced clip.”

The White House believes negotiations on the deal are “headed in the right direction,” Jean-Pierre said.

When asked about White House negotiations with Senate and House Republicans, Jean-Pierre said House Republicans “have gotten in the way when it comes to border security.”

“We want to work with them, but they’ve been very clear where they stand,” she said during the daily press briefing.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/18/no-deal-on-ukraine-israel-aid-after-white-house-meeting-with-top-congressional-leaders/feed/ 0
Child tax credit expansion, business incentives combined in new congressional tax plan https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/child-tax-credit-expansion-business-incentives-combined-in-new-congressional-tax-plan/ Tue, 16 Jan 2024 18:03:09 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=18496

U.S. Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri delivers remarks during a House Oversight Committee hearing on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Leading members of Congress released a bipartisan, bicameral tax proposal Tuesday, promising a middle-path deal to help low-income families and provide incentives for businesses as Trump-era tax breaks expire.

The framework led by top tax policy leaders U.S. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri would raise the child tax credit incrementally through 2025 and restore tax relief for affordable housing projects.

The three-year proposal would also make exempt disaster payments to wildfire victims and to those who suffered losses after the massive train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The deal also aims to extend research and development tax credits, as well as reduce tax burdens on U.S.-Taiwan business relationships, an effort to bolster relations with the autonomous island nation vulnerable to Chinese government aggression.

Wyden, chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, said in a statement that “(f)ifteen million kids from low-income families will be better off as a result of this plan, and given today’s miserable political climate, it’s a big deal to have this opportunity to pass pro-family policy that helps so many kids get ahead.”

Democrats have been pushing to permanently raise the tax credit that low-income families receive per child after a temporary increase during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrated significant reductions in child poverty. The current proposal would end in 2025.

Wyden also praised the deal’s potential to spur affordable housing construction and said that his goal “remains to get this passed in time for families and businesses to benefit in this upcoming tax filing season, and I’m going to pull out all the stops to get that done.”

Smith, chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, said “American families will benefit from this bipartisan agreement that provides greater tax relief, strengthens Main Street businesses, boosts our competitiveness with China, and creates jobs.”

Ending fraud-ridden program

Both lawmakers highlighted the proposal’s effort to rein in abuse of the COVID-19-era employee retention tax credit by increasing penalties and the statute of limitations for those committing fraud, and cutting short the overall program by 14 months.

“We even provide disaster relief and cut red tape for small businesses, while ending a COVID-era program that’s costing taxpayers billions in fraud. This legislation locks in over $600 billion in proven pro-growth, pro-America tax policies with key provisions that support over 21 million jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation,” Smith continued in a statement Tuesday.

And for those who file 1099 forms, a provision tucked away in the framework would increase the threshold to file to $1,000 from the current $600.

The proposal won praise from across the tax policy spectrum.

Business Roundtable, an advocacy organization representing a wide range of U.S. CEOs, described the deal’s pitch to revive expired pro-business policies as “critical to strengthening America’s global competitiveness.”

“Business Roundtable strongly supports the bipartisan deal to restore three vital pro-growth tax policies that have expired or are being phased out,” the organization’s CEO Joshua Bolten said in a statement Tuesday. “Reviving immediate research and development expensing, full expensing for purchases of equipment, machinery and technology, and a more sensible business interest deduction would increase domestic investment, bolster U.S. innovation and create American jobs.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat and evangelist for the child tax credit, urged his colleagues to pass the deal, calling it a “win-win for Ohio families and Ohio manufacturers.”

“The deal’s expansion of the Child Tax Credit will help parents keep up with the rising cost of living and ensure that their hard work pays off,” Brown said in a statement. “The business provisions will support American companies that invest in our nation’s research and manufacturing. The deal also ensures that residents of East Palestine won’t get hit with a surprise tax bill for payments they received from Norfolk Southern after last year’s derailment.”

CORRECTION: The deal would expand the Child Tax Credit through 2025. A previous version of this report misstated the timeframe.

]]>
U.S. House Republicans probe DEI policies in the military https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/12/u-s-house-republicans-probe-dei-policies-in-the-military/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/12/u-s-house-republicans-probe-dei-policies-in-the-military/#respond Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:00:51 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18468

A Marine Corps staff sergeant helps conduct the final inspection of recruit training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, S.C., Jan. 5, 2024. During their last inspection, new Marines are tested on everything they’ve been taught, including uniform standards and discipline (DOD Photo by Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Ava Alegria).

WASHINGTON — Republican U.S. House lawmakers, led by Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, conducted a hearing Thursday to examine the possibility that “wokeness” hurts U.S. military readiness and effectiveness.

The winding, over two-hour hearing by a subpanel of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability broached topics including, but not limited to, recruitment, benefits for military families, Marxism, Alabama GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s monthslong blockade of military promotions, military desegregation, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and even a relitigation of the end of the Vietnam War.

The hearing did not focus on any specific proposals.

In his opening remarks, Grothman, who chairs the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs, said the military is “grappling with the Biden Administration’s social experiments of integrating principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion — or ‘DEI’— into their ranks.”

Among his concerns, Grothman highlighted the Pentagon’s roughly $114 million request for the programs in the military’s $884 billion authorized, but not yet funded, budget.

“To be clear, acknowledging the various experiences of our service members may have the potential to enhance our overall strength and resilience as a nation and fighting force,” Grothman continued. “But at the end of the day, our differences must yield to what we have in common. A duty to protect the American freedoms we hold so dear.”

The GOP-led subcommittee’s invited witnesses told the panel that DEI policies and alleged quotas undermine the military’s professionalism, and are the cause of lagging recruit numbers, which are down 39% since a recent peak in 1987, according to the nonprofit USAFacts.

The Pentagon reported the military services collectively missed their recruiting goals by 41,000 in fiscal year 2023.

“I watched DEI trainings divide our troops ideologically and in some cases sow the seeds of animosity toward the very country they had sworn to defend,” said witness Matt Lohmeier, a U.S. Space Force veteran who told lawmakers he was fired from his command for his views on DEI in 2021, the same year he published the book “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military.”

Democrat objects to DEI arguments

The Pentagon did not provide a response to the criticism, including specific accusations of quotas, when asked Thursday afternoon.

However, the subcommittee’s ranking member Robert Garcia vehemently opposed many claims voiced in Thursday’s hearing and pushed back on the notion that DEI policies are the culprit behind declining enlistment.

“Data and evidence show sexual assault, mental health care, affordable childcare are all real factors that affect military recruitment, retention and readiness,” Garcia, a California Democrat, said, expressing that he was “dismayed and disappointed” that Thursday’s hearing was a regurgitated version of a subpanel hearing held in March.

“The idea that quote ‘wokeness’ is a top national security threat did not make any sense then and does not make any sense today, and it makes even less sense now given the world that we face,” Garcia continued.

What the surveys say

Military-sponsored and other analyses reveal reasons for apprehension about modern U.S. military service.

Youths ages 16 to 21 reported in 2022 the possibility of injury or death as their top reason not to join the military, according to the Department of Defense’s Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies latest available annual survey.

Other top reasons included possibility of PTSD or other emotional issues; leaving family and friends; other career interests; and dislike of the military lifestyle.

Among the leading reasons cited by the youth for joining the military were money, college tuition payments, travel, paid health care and the opportunity to learn work skills.

An analysis by the RAND Corporation found that while Americans still overwhelmingly have positive views of veterans, a majority would discourage a young person from enlisting in the ranks.

However the 2023 analysis by one of the leading defense research firms found that 61.2% of American adults would encourage youth to join the Reserve Officers Training Corps, commonly called ROTC, or apply to a service academy.

The analysis also reports that nearly one-quarter of adults believe that most Americans look up to military service members, while only 4% believe the public looks negatively upon them.

‘The armed forces were wrecked’ by 1970

Retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Ty Seidule told the panel Thursday that the U.S. military is more effective today because of social change precipitated by Congress over several decades as gender barriers fell and legally protected classes expanded.

Seidule, another witness before the subcommittee, said that though President Harry Truman ordered military desegregation in 1948, changes did not occur until Congress demanded it in the 1970s.

By 1971, “race relations were at its nadir and drug use at its peak. The armed forces were wrecked and unable to defend the nation,” said Seidule, a visiting professor of history at Hamilton College, and professor emeritus of history at West Point.

The Department of Defense created the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute in 1971 to develop standards and training. The institute is funded by Congress each year, and continues to provide education, expanding in recent years to cultural awareness, human relations and harassment prevention, according to the department.

“Over the next twenty years, DoD instituted and internalized a culture of diversity that transformed the military and brought victory in the first Gulf War. The military has been working on diversity for a long time because it works,” Seidule said.

Other changes that followed included permitting women to attend the service academies, and ending “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the President Bill Clinton-era policy that allowed LGBTQ members to serve as long as they kept their sexual orientation hidden. Among other changes Seidule highlighted: ending combat exclusion for women and removing the commemoration of the Confederacy.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2021 added requirements for a Pentagon-wide Chief Diversity Officer and Senior Advisors for Diversity and Inclusion for each department.

House Republicans passed a version of the annual defense legislation for fiscal year 2024 that would have eliminated all DEI programs and positions at the Pentagon, but the amendments were struck from the final version.

However, negotiators landed on a hiring freeze and pay grade cap for DEI employees to be included in the NDAA text approved by Congress in December.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/12/u-s-house-republicans-probe-dei-policies-in-the-military/feed/ 0
Three-judge federal panel grills Trump lawyer on claim of presidential immunity https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/09/three-judge-federal-panel-grills-trump-lawyer-on-claim-of-presidential-immunity/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/09/three-judge-federal-panel-grills-trump-lawyer-on-claim-of-presidential-immunity/#respond Tue, 09 Jan 2024 19:12:39 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18401

D. John Sauer, former solicitor general of Missouri, represented Donald Trump before an appeals court panel on Jan. 9, 2024. Sauer is pictured here testifying during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on July 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump appeared in federal court Tuesday seeking immunity from charges that he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and knowingly fed lies to supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump, who is leading polls in the 2024 Republican presidential primary field, watched while his attorney D. John Sauer was grilled by a panel of judges as he argued that the former president is shielded from criminal prosecution because he acted in an official capacity. Trump in a brief press conference later suggested a ruling against his immunity claim would spur “bedlam” from his supporters.

The former president arrived at the courtroom minutes before the proceedings with his team of lawyers and sat mostly expressionless, taking no notes, while Sauer answered questions from a three-judge all-female panel, according to reporters inside the courtroom. Dozens of other journalists watched a live feed from a media room for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse.

Presiding Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs fired question after question to Sauer for roughly 40 minutes as he argued that Trump’s acts leading up to and on Jan. 6 were “official” and that his eventual acquittal by the U.S. Senate protects him from double jeopardy.

Trump was impeached by the U.S. House for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6.

The decision by the appeals judges — Henderson, appointed under President George H. W. Bush, and the others recent President Joe Biden appointees — is likely to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling could have significant implications for presidential liability.

Under questioning, Sauer — who previously served as Missouri’s solicitor general under Attorneys General Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt — told the appeals panel that “to authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora’s box (from) which this nation may never recover.”

The judges questioned whether a president’s actions while in office, no matter the legality, would be immune from criminal prosecution.

“You’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival,” Pan said to Sauer.

Sauer conceded that selling military secrets “strikes me as something that might not be held to be an official act.”

Pan replied that Sauer’s concession undermines the Trump team’s argument that the government’s separation of powers guarantees the judiciary cannot hold the executive branch accountable.

“Given that you’re conceding that presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances, doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to ‘Can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said.

“Your separation of powers argument falls away, your policy arguments fall away if you concede that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances,” Pan said.

Henderson, questioning whether Trump’s actions can be defended as official acts, said, “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate (federal law).”

Government’s case

Arguing for the U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce described the potential for an “awfully scary” and “frightening” future if presidents could be completely immune from criminal prosecution.

Pearce rebuffed the notion that “floodgates” would open for cases against presidents.

“This investigation doesn’t reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit for tat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here,” Pearce said.

Trump could be seen shaking his head in disagreement at the comment, according to reporters in the room.

“If as I understood my friend on the other side is to say here, a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, (it’s) not a criminal act. I think that’s an extraordinarily frightening future,” Pearce said during his roughly 20 minutes of questioning.

In his five-minute rebuttal, Sauer said a United States in which a president is “very, very, very seldom prosecuted because they have to be impeached and convicted first is the one we’ve lived under for 235 years. That’s not a frightening future, that’s our republic.”

Sauer said the criminal charges against Trump are now creating “a situation where we have the prosecution of the political opponent who’s leading in every poll in the presidential election next year and is being prosecuted by the administration that he’s seeking to replace.”

The three-judge panel concluded oral arguments after an hour and 15 minutes and did not indicate when judges would release a decision.

Trump calls for immunity, warns of ‘bedlam‘

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump stands on stage before a campaign event on Nov. 11, 2023, in Claremont, New Hampshire, in which he called his political opponents “vermin” (Scott Eisen/Getty Images).

In brief remarks following the hearing at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington, which was a Trump-branded property until his business sold the lease in 2022, Trump said presidents should have legal immunity, proclaimed his innocence and hinted his supporters would create more unrest if he were prosecuted.

Biden was using federal prosecutions to damage his chief rival politically, Trump said.

“This is the way they’re going to try to win,” he said. “And that’s not the way it goes. There’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing, it’s a very bad precedent. As we’ve said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box. It’s a very sad thing that’s happened with this whole situation.

“When they talk about threat to democracy, that’s your real threat to democracy and I feel that as a president, you have to have immunity,” Trump added.

The remarks drew on a strategy the Trump campaign has employed for months to use the former president’s myriad legal troubles to boost his electoral standing by framing him as a victim of political persecution.

Trump suggested that he was being prosecuted for official acts related to curbing voter fraud and repeated debunked claims that the 2020 election was decided by fraudulent votes.

“I did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong,” he added. “I’m working for the country.”

Trump spoke for just more than seven minutes and did not take questions.

Trump indictment

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in December denied Trump’s motion to dismiss his case based on presidential immunity.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to immediately take the case, bypassing the appeals level, but the justices declined.

A federal grand jury indicted Trump in August for interfering in election results following the November 2020 presidential contest.

The indictment accuses Trump of conspiring with attorneys, a U.S. Department of Justice official and a political consultant, all unnamed, to organize fake electors for Trump from seven key states that Biden in fact won. Those states included Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The indictment also outlined Trump’s pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors from those states during his ceremonial role of certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.

Leading up to that date, the indictment recounts, Trump knowingly fed a stream of lies to his supporters that he won the election, igniting a rally during which he spoke on Jan. 6, 2021 and culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The official four charges against Trump include conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/09/three-judge-federal-panel-grills-trump-lawyer-on-claim-of-presidential-immunity/feed/ 0
Trump legal problems abound as first test of 2024 presidential campaign nears in Iowa https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/08/trump-legal-problems-abound-as-first-test-of-2024-presidential-campaign-nears-in-iowa/ https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/08/trump-legal-problems-abound-as-first-test-of-2024-presidential-campaign-nears-in-iowa/#respond Mon, 08 Jan 2024 16:45:34 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18372

Both Colorado and Maine concluded that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era insurrection clause on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore cannot seek elected office (Mark Wilson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — On the cusp of a 2024 election season like none other in U.S. history, former President Donald Trump’s legal and political worlds are set to converge.

Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday will argue before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. that he is immune from prosecution for actions he’s accused of taking while in office — less than a week before Iowa Republicans congregate in town halls and church basements for their first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.

If Trump disagrees with the decision at the appeals level, he is expected to escalate his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decision could have wide-ranging implications if the justices take the case, a likely possibility.

That request would mark the second time Trump has petitioned the high court ahead of the election. Last week Trump asked the justices — one-third of whom he appointed — to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to strike his name from the ballot, citing his role on Jan. 6, 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case and set legal arguments for Feb. 8.

Trump has appealed a similar decision in Maine, but at a state court level.

Both Colorado and Maine concluded that Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era insurrection clause on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore cannot seek elected office.

The nation’s 45th commander-in-chief, vying to again occupy the Oval Office, faces 91 criminal charges spread across four federal and state indictments, is the subject in a string of civil suits and sits in limbo over whether his name can remain on primary ballots in Colorado and Maine. At the same time, the primary season will kick off with Iowa’s caucuses on Jan. 15, quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 23 and a long lineup of state contests through the spring.

Polls show Trump holding a commanding lead in the Republican presidential primary, and the highly polarized political climate suggests he won’t lose much support among GOP voters even as his legal troubles intensify, experts said. Trump, buoyed by his supporters, has so far shown a remarkable talent for turning his scandals to his political advantage.

Even a small shift among general election voters, though, could have a significant impact on the general election, which may be decided by tens of thousands of votes in swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.

While much lesser scandals have sunk presidential bids in previous eras, Trump’s message has been effective in a deeply divided country, Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Rather than seeing criminal allegations as disqualifying, Trump’s base views the prosecutions as evidence to support Trump’s claims of political corruption that only he can fix.

“He benefits enormously — and has benefited enormously since 2016 — from the polarization that exists in the country,” she said.

“There are people on the right who see him being persecuted by the government for political purposes,” she added. “If you believe that about him, and you believe that the Biden administration is trying to destroy him through the legal system, that’s going to help solidify his appeal.”

Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Presidential immunity?

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump stands on stage before a campaign event on Nov. 11, 2023, in Claremont, New Hampshire, in which he called his political opponents “vermin” (Scott Eisen/Getty Images).

Key oral arguments on Trump’s immunity are scheduled for Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Court documents filed ahead of the date show that Trump’s attorneys will assert that the former president has criminal immunity for his “official acts.”

Trump posted Monday on his media platform Truth Social that he plans to attend the hearing.

A lower court in December denied Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted on four federal criminal charges accusing him of working with co-conspirators to subvert the 2020 presidential election results that declared Joe Biden the winner.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set Trump’s election interference trial for March 4, just one day before the election year’s so-called Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold their presidential primaries.

However, that trial date is likely to be postponed as the Supreme Court considers the question of presidential immunity, adding uncertainty to Trump’s legal and campaign calendars.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading two cases against Trump, had already requested the Supreme Court bypass the appeals level and quickly settle the question, but the justices declined.

Trump’s team of lawyers argued in their brief to the appeals court that language in the U.S. Constitution prevents Trump from criminal prosecution, maintaining the country’s “234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting Presidents for official acts, despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerful evidence of it.”

Attorneys, including John Lauro, Todd Blanche and John Sauer, wrote in the 41-page brief filed Jan. 2 that because executive power is “exclusively vested in the President,” the judicial branch “cannot sit in criminal judgment” over his or her official acts.

They further lean on the Constitution’s impeachment judgment clause and the “principles of double jeopardy” to say that because Trump was impeached for his actions related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but later acquitted by the Senate, he cannot be criminally tried on federal charges accusing him of interfering in the 2020 presidential election results.

Critics say those arguments are “misguided and without foundation,” as put by former Trump administration White House Special Counsel Ty Cobb, who was among 16 constitutional lawyers, former prosecutors, and former elected officials to file an amicus brief to the appeals court opposing Trump’s argument.

“This is a specious appeal done solely for delay,” Cobb told reporters Jan. 4 during a virtual press conference.

Norm Eisen, a former Obama White House official and co-counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told reporters that Trump’s argument for presidential immunity was “abhorrent to American law.”

“If Donald Trump were to be afforded the form of immunity that he seeks as a former president, the election to the presidency would serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Eisen said. “That would allow the Oval Office to become the setting for a crime spree. That is not the American idea.”

Olivia Troye, former special advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism for Vice President Mike Pence, said the matter should be settled “as soon as possible.”

“We need a decision on this,” Troye, who joined Cobb and Eisen in signing the amicus brief, said Thursday.

Mixing court cases and fundraising

Trump has skillfully used the allegations against him as a boon to his campaign, repeating, without evidence, that the prosecutions are baseless attempts by the establishment to undercut his movement, political observers said.

Trump routinely comments on his criminal cases in fundraising pitches and other campaign material.

On Jan. 2, Trump’s campaign released a vitriolic statement after his lawyers filed a brief requesting to hold special counsel Smith in contempt of court for filing a motion in trial court while Trump’s presidential immunity appeal is pending.

Campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in an email to supporters that Smith “unilaterally decided to disobey the stay order and continue with his harassing litigation, all done in order to keep parroting the pathetic Biden Campaign’s corrupt talking points in the name of election interference.”

“As a result, President Trump is seeking to hold Deranged Jack in contempt of Court,” Cheung wrote, using a derogatory nickname for Smith also often used by Trump.

While not one of his criminal cases, Trump’s campaign is also attempting to energize his base around keeping his name on the Colorado ballot. The campaign sent a message Jan. 5 urging voters to “Help win the Supreme Court battle to save your right to vote,” and asked them to contribute in amounts ranging from $24 to $250.

Because of the polarized political environment, most Republican primary voters are unlikely to be swayed by Trump’s legal problems, said Larry Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey School and the Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.

But that could change in a general election, where even a slight shift away from Trump among the relatively few swing voters could be determinative, he said.

“It’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, Republicans are going to turn on Trump,’” Jacobs said. “No. The partisanship guarantees they won’t turn on Trump. But if you get a small percent in a divided country, that will be the difference.”

Commanding primary lead

Police confront pro-Trump rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 (photo by Alex Kent).

The string of indictments against Trump last year appeared to do little to hurt his prospects in the Republican primary, where he still leads national polls by nearly 50 percentage points over his closest rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

Early-state nominating contests this month will provide the first firm data on where the race stands. Trump’s lead is slightly smaller in Iowa — about 30 percentage points — than in national surveys, and Haley holds an outside chance of winning New Hampshire’s primary eight days later, where polls show her within 5 points of Trump.

Part of Trump’s appeal in the primary is the sense that his renomination is inevitable, Jacobs said. If early results challenge that assumption, the shape of the race could change, he said.

Dolan noted that despite large polling leads, Trump has not yet won a single vote in the 2024 election cycle and there’s still some degree of uncertainty around primary results.

“Polls don’t vote,” she said.

“These early states can have some surprises,” Christopher Stout, a political scientist at Oregon State University, said. “Haley could win or someone could surprise Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire and change the framing.”

Yet more legal cases

The March 4 trial on election interference charges is the earliest scheduled criminal proceeding against the former president, but others could soon follow.

A four-count indictment in that case accuses Trump of seeking to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Trump conspired to recruit false slates of electors, knowingly lied to the public about non-existent election fraud and encouraged supporters to obstruct the election certification in a violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

That case is just one of four pending criminal trials in which he’s a defendant.

All four indictments were charged last year and all could have trials begin in 2024. Three cases are scheduled to begin trials in the coming months, though those dates could change.

Trump is accused in New York state court of falsifying business records by reporting hush money payments as legal expenses.

According to that state indictment, Trump’s attorney and personal fixer, Michael Cohen, paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to stay silent during the 2016 campaign about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Trump then repaid Cohen through his business, but recorded the transactions as legitimate legal expenses.

That trial is scheduled to begin March 25.

Trump also faces federal charges that he mishandled classified documents as president. That trial, brought in a federal court in South Florida, is scheduled to begin May 20, though U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has pushed back some pretrial deadlines that could indicate the trial itself will be delayed.

Trump was also indicted in Georgia state court on election interference charges. The Georgia indictment focuses on an alleged conspiracy to overturn the state’s election results. A trial date has not been set in that case, though the district attorney has requested an August date.

A conviction in any of the cases before the election would not disqualify Trump from the presidency.

But it’s an unsettled legal question if he could pardon himself in a second term that could lead to yet more time in the courts.

“The Supreme Court would have to decide whether or not presidential pardon powers in Article II are absolute,” Stout said. “Can an individual pardon themselves? I anticipate that would lead to a host of other legal fights that would happen after his election.”

Trump also faces a slew of civil lawsuits.

Trump and his company are snarled in a civil case in the New York State Supreme Court that could end with hundreds of millions in fines for the former president. The company stands accused of inflating the value of assets as a means to secure better standing with insurers and banks.

Meanwhile, a civil defamation trial against the former president is set to begin Jan. 16 in a Manhattan federal district court. Writer E. Jean Carroll, who in 2019 publicly accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, sued Trump for defaming her after her accusation.

Trump tried to claim presidential immunity in the civil defamation case, but was denied in December.

A jury in May already found Trump liable for sexual abuse of Carroll stemming from a 1996 incident, which Trump denies. The court awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump has appealed the decision.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/08/trump-legal-problems-abound-as-first-test-of-2024-presidential-campaign-nears-in-iowa/feed/ 0
Shipbuilding, bombers, military pay raise: Congress sends massive defense bill to Biden https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/14/shipbuilding-bombers-military-pay-raise-congress-sends-massive-defense-bill-to-biden/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/14/shipbuilding-bombers-military-pay-raise-congress-sends-massive-defense-bill-to-biden/#respond Thu, 14 Dec 2023 18:59:12 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18151

Congress on Thursday, Dec. 14, 2023 cleared for the president’s signature the annual defense policy bill. In this photo, U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the 4th Infantry Division walk onto a land navigation course in pursuit of the Expert Infantryman, Soldier or Field Medical Badge on Fort Carson, Colorado, Dec. 4, 2023. Land navigation prepares soldiers for navigating unfamiliar territory in a combat situation (Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army).

WASHINGTON — The massive annual defense policy package cleared Congress ahead of the holiday recess, despite protests about attaching a foreign surveillance extension and criticism that the bill did not block a Pentagon abortion policy.

U.S. House lawmakers approved the package on Thursday 310-118, under a suspension of the chamber’s rules, meaning a two-thirds majority was required.

A bloc of the most far-right representatives voted against the legislation, as did members of the House’s most progressive wing.

If signed into law, which is expected, the roughly $884 billion legislation would authorize a 5.2% pay raise for troops, approve a nuclear submarine program for the Indo-Pacific region and carry the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA, until mid-April.

The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, for fiscal year 2024 authorizes the dollar amounts that will be dedicated to continuing military and nuclear operations but does not directly provide the funds. Congress has yet to pass its annual funding bills.

Direct funding for Ukraine’s war effort is also knotted up in congressional infighting over immigration policy. The NDAA would direct $300 million to Ukraine in security assistance as well as support programs for Ukrainian troops suffering post-traumatic stress disorders and brain injuries.

Bipartisan Senate passage

The U.S. Senate passed the legislation in a bipartisan 87-13 vote Wednesday night.

“I am pleased that the Senate has come together to once again pass a strong, bipartisan defense bill. This is a dangerous moment in the world, and the NDAA makes critical progress toward meeting the threats we face,” Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said in a statement late Wednesday.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee’s ranking member, said the bill  “should signal to China, Russia, and others that we will not accept a world where America does not have the best fighting force.”

“While I would have preferred to send the President a substantially larger proposed investment in our industrial base, he now should approve the monumental investments Congress intends to make in our servicemembers, warships, submarines, aircraft, and technology,” the Mississippi Republican said in a statement after the vote.

The vote followed a failed attempt by GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky to block a controversial decision to use the defense package as a vehicle to temporarily extend FISA, which would have expired Dec. 31.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle oppose the surveillance law’s ability to scoop up communications by U.S. citizens while spying on foreign targets.

‘Best shipbuilders in the world’

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 4, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

Several senators praised the bill for economic activity that will be brought to their states.

Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said $300 million was authorized for his state’s defense-related workforce and activities.

“Pennsylvania’s military installations and defense industry continue to play a key role in supporting allies like Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel against attacks on democracy abroad,” Fetterman, a Democrat, said in a statement Thursday morning.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia also issued a morning statement lauding the legislation’s support of Virginia’s defense and shipbuilding industries.

“The legislation also bolsters our alliances, as it includes my bipartisan bill to prevent any U.S. President from withdrawing from NATO, as well as provisions I secured to support the Australia-U.K-U.S. (AUKUS) agreement.

“Our NATO and AUKUS alliances are critical to our national security and economic growth in Hampton Roads, which is home to the only operational NATO command in the U.S. and the best shipbuilders in the world,” the Virginia Democrat said, referring to an area in Virginia with a large military presence, including Langley Air Force Base and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune of South Dakota on the floor Tuesday applauded the bill’s funding authorization for the B-21 bomber program, which will be located in his state at Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Senators who opposed the bill included New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, Indiana Republican Mike Braun, Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, Utah Republican Mike Lee, Wyoming Republican Cynthia Lummis, Massachusetts Democrats Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Oregon Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, Ohio Republican J.D. Vance and Vermont Democrat Peter Welch.

Hawley vehemently opposed the legislation after his amendment to compensate those exposed to residual radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project was removed from the final bill.

Hawley’s original amendment, which passed the Senate in July to be attached to the NDAA, would have opened the compensation program for St. Louis, Missouri residents and to those living in Colorado, Idaho, Guam, Montana and New Mexico, as well as expanded coverage areas in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Far-right opposition

While the bill followed a relatively smooth path among senators, the defense policy legislation hit opposition in the GOP-led House, where far-right lawmakers maintain their priorities were stripped from the compromise legislation.

“With this NDAA conference report, you almost feel like a parent who’s sent a child off to summer camp and they’ve come back a monster,” GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said on the floor Thursday morning.

Gaetz was among the no votes.

House Freedom Caucus members accused the bill’s negotiators of secretive, non-inclusive negotiations during which their amendments to block a Department of Defense abortion policy, ban certain transgender care for troops and completely eliminate any Pentagon diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs were nixed.

“The Swamp’s ‘compromise’ NDAA allows the DOD to use your tax dollars to fund abortion travel for servicemembers. As a proud pro-life conservative, I’ll be voting NO,” Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia posted Tuesday night on X after the Senate voted to advance the bill.

GOP Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina wrote on social media Wednesday that “The Backroom NDAA is a disaster for conservatives in so many ways.”

The Pentagon’s abortion policy gives time off and travel reimbursement for service members who seek abortions in states where it remains legal. The policy, instated after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, fueled Alabama GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s monthslong freeze on military promotions.

Clyde and Norman both opposed the NDAA Thursday morning, along with outgoing House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

Some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted no included its chair Pramila Jayapal of Washington, deputy chair Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Cori Bush of Missouri, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and retiring Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.

Policies on flags, DEI hiring remain

While some far-right House amendments are not in the final text, other conservative priorities remained, including a measure to prohibit, with some conditions negotiated by the Senate, the display of unapproved flags. Democrats protested the original language as a ban on LBGTQ+ flags.

Despite throwing out the amendment to eliminate all DEI programs and positions, negotiators landed on a hiring freeze and pay grade cap for employees on the initiatives.

The Senate receded during negotiations and also allowed a House-led amendment to remain that bans any funding for critical race theory at military service academies and during training.

Negotiators also kept a familiar conservative priority of codifying the rights of parents to review school curricula. The guarantee, usually already available to school parents, will now be codified in the NDAA for parents of schoolchildren enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity programs.

The legislation heads to President Joe Biden’s desk. The administration had called on Congress for the bill’s “swift passage.”

Congress has passed the NDAA for 63 consecutive years. The annual defense policy package typically draws bipartisan support.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/14/shipbuilding-bombers-military-pay-raise-congress-sends-massive-defense-bill-to-biden/feed/ 0
Federal defense bill advances without compensation for St. Louis victims of nuclear waste https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/defense-radioactive-senate-st-lous/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/defense-radioactive-senate-st-lous/#respond Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:13:55 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18128

Sen. Josh Hawley delayed the NDAA’s cloture vote by about 90 minutes. A motion he filed to stop the procedural vote failed, 26-73 (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

A joint investigation by The Independent and MuckRock.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate took an important step Tuesday toward passing the nation’s annual defense policy bill, but the legislation did not include provisions aimed at compensating victims of radioactive contamination in St. Louis and around the country.

The reliably bipartisan legislation is expected to hit the same hard-right opposition in the U.S. House that has dogged lawmakers since the beginning of this Congress.

The Democratic-led upper chamber voted to end debate on this year’s $886 billion National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 85-15 tally. The legislation will greenlight, but not directly fund, the continuation of U.S. military operations and nuclear weapons programs.

The bill is expected to receive final Senate approval Wednesday and reach the GOP-led House floor Thursday, where a group of far-right members accuse colleagues on both sides of the aisle of stripping the final compromise text of conservative priorities.

On the conservative wish list: Prohibiting the Pentagon’s leave and travel allowances for troops seeking abortion in states where it remains legal, and prohibiting gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatments for service members.

Congress members often use the bill as a vehicle for various legislation because lawmakers reliably get it done.

Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri vowed last week to “do everything in my power to slow (NDAA passage) or stop it if I can” after his amendment to compensate those exposed to residual radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project was stripped from the final bill.

On Tuesday Hawley delayed the NDAA’s cloture vote by about 90 minutes. A motion he filed to stop the procedural vote failed, 26-73.

Hawley’s original amendment, which passed the Senate in July to be attached to the NDAA, would have opened the compensation program for St. Louis, Missouri residents and to those living in Colorado, Idaho, Guam, Montana and New Mexico, as well as expanded coverage areas in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Hawley was among 15 votes Tuesday against advancing the overall bill.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat, spoke Tuesday on the floor along with Hawley criticizing the amendment’s removal.

“This is legislation which we all fought for,” Luján said. “We passed this with a bipartisan strong vote of the Senate, it’s now been taken out of NDAA in conference. What do I tell these families?”

Luján joined Hawley in voting against ending debate on the bill.

This year hard-right members are further incensed by House Speaker Mike Johnson’s agreement to tack on a temporary extension until April of the nation’s foreign surveillance law that was set to expire by year’s end.

Lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum have criticized the surveillance law as “unlawful, mass surveillance of Americans,” as former House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Biggs of Arizona protested on X on Friday.

In a joint statement issued by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the senators thanked Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, for the “House’s commitment to extend vital national security authorities” under the surveillance law.

The pair promised the surveillance law will be negotiated on its own next year.

Praise for the NDAA

Schumer praised the defense package on the Senate floor Tuesday for bipartisan, bicameral support and specifically highlighted the authorization of Virginia-class submarines to Australia in a trilateral agreement also involving the United Kingdom.

“This historic agreement will create a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in the Pacific,” Schumer said.

South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune similarly said the bill “makes some genuine progress on the readiness front.” Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Thune said “above all” he is pleased with authorization of funding for the B-21 bomber plane program, which will be located in his state at Ellsworth Air Force Base.

“I’m also pleased that this year’s NDAA takes measures to keep our military’s focus on warfighting and not the dissemination of woke ideologies by Pentagon bureaucrats,” Thune said on the floor.

The final language includes a Senate amendment to temporarily freeze the hiring of any Department of Defense positions related to diversity, equity and inclusion, often referred to as DEI. A GOP-led House amendment to eliminate the department’s DEI offices and positions, including Chief Diversity Officer, did not make it into the final bill.

However, a compromise amendment to establish a pay cap for Defense employees working solely on DEI initiatives also appeared in the final text.

A last-ditch effort by Sen. Joni Ernst that she described as “reversing the DoD abortion travel (policy)” failed, 47-53. The Iowa Republican tried to hold up the bill’s cloture vote and return it to negotiators for changes that could have included abortion policy language.

The Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members time off and travel reimbursement when seeking an abortion was the reason behind Alabama GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s nine-month blockade of hundreds of military nominees.

Despite Ernst’s objection, she voted to advance the full defense package.

Senators who also voted against advancing the NDAA included New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, Indiana Republican Mike Braun, Utah Republican Mike Lee, Wyoming Republican Cynthia Lummis, Massachusetts Democrats Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Oregon Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, Tuberville, Ohio Republican J.D. Vance, and Vermont Democrat Peter Welch.

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania joined his colleagues Tuesday in supporting the defense package but in recent weeks has publicly criticized negotiators for leaving out his amendment to monitor private U.S. investment in advanced tech ventures in China.

The House GOP’s far-right opposition

The GOP’s far-right House Freedom Caucus members issued a statement Friday characterizing the compromise legislation as a “predetermined deal … reached behind closed doors (that) has been air dropped into the process to undermine many of the most critical House GOP positions.”

“Any reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must be considered only with significant reforms as a standalone measure. Under no circumstances should an extension be attached to ‘must-pass’ legislation such as the (NDAA),” caucus members wrote.

Members are “prepared to use all available leverage to change the status quo. We will not simply vote ‘no’ on bad legislation and go home for Christmas,” the statement later said, referring to the defense policy bill as well as hinging foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel on changes to immigration policy.

If lawmakers send the defense policy package to President Joe Biden’s desk, the passage would mark Congress’ 63rd consecutive time doing so.

The White House released a statement Tuesday saying it “commends the strong, bipartisan work of the conference committee to negotiate and draft a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that continues to strengthen our national defense, supports our dedicated troops and their families, and reinforces our alliances and partnerships around the world.”

“The NDAA provides the critical authorities we need to build the military required to deter future conflicts while supporting the servicemembers and their spouses and families who carry out that mission every day.”

The House and Senate versions of the massive defense package were reconciled by members from both chambers under the majority and minority leadership of both Armed Services committees, which included Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Reps. Mike Rogers of Alabama and Adam Smith of Washington.

The “four corners,” as they are called in defense policy circles, released a joint statement on the compromise bill calling it Congress’ “most important responsibility.”

“Our nation faces unprecedented threats from China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. It is vital that we act now to protect our national security,” they said in the Dec. 7 statement.

Both chambers are scheduled to leave Thursday afternoon for a three-week winter break. The current NDAA expires on Dec. 31.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/defense-radioactive-senate-st-lous/feed/ 0
Zelenskyy pitches Congress on Ukraine military aid, but it’s tied to stalled border talks https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/zelenskyy-pitches-congress-on-ukraine-military-aid-but-its-tied-to-stalled-border-talks/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/zelenskyy-pitches-congress-on-ukraine-military-aid-but-its-tied-to-stalled-border-talks/#respond Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:29:50 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18116

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, center, walks with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, left, and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer as he arrives at the U.S. Capitol to meet with congressional leadership on Dec. 12, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy struggled Tuesday to convince members of Congress to approve billions in additional aid to his country at a crucial moment in the nearly two-year war with Russia.

But the outlook was grim as lawmakers remained deadlocked on another piece of a supplemental spending bill under debate in the Senate that would send funds to Ukraine — major changes in immigration policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Zelenskyy huddled behind closed doors in the morning with senators before meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican. He was scheduled to travel to the White House in the afternoon, where he will meet privately with President Joe Biden before the two hold a joint press conference.

Zelenskyy urged lawmakers to approve additional funding for the U.S. Defense and State departments to send military assistance to his country, which in turn will allow Ukrainian fighters to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin from moving closer to NATO countries allied in Europe and North America.

But Zelenskyy cannot broker a bipartisan agreement on U.S. border policy, the issue that is really holding up aid to Ukraine as well as Israel and Taiwan. Those talks continued Tuesday, though there isn’t enough time to approve any agreement that might be reached before Congress leaves Thursday for a three-week winter break.

Senate leaders speak out

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said after the meeting that he planned to work as long as it takes to get an agreement on U.S. border policy to advance funding for Ukraine.

“Our Ukrainian friends’ cause is just, and if the West continues to stand with them, they can win,” McConnell said.

Referring to Zelenskyy as “inspirational and determined,” McConnell said Ukraine’s military has “defied the world’s expectations” by holding off Russia’s military as well as Putin’s “aggressive, imperialist aspirations.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said following the meeting that he would like Congress to stay in town past Thursday.

“Last night, I got on the phone with Speaker Johnson and urged him to keep the House in session, to give a supplemental a chance to come together,” Schumer said.

“If Republicans are serious about getting something done on the border then why are so many of them in such a hurry to leave for the winter break?” Schumer added. “Has the border simply been an excuse to kill funding for Ukraine?”

Without additional military and humanitarian aid, Schumer said, Russia’s chances of defeating the Ukrainian military would increase, a scenario that would represent “a historic and colossal tragedy.”

“If Russia is victorious, future generations will remember this as a moment of shame for the West, for the United States and for those in the Senate who sought to block it,” Schumer said. “This is a moment when a friend in need called on our help. We must rise to the occasion.”

Johnson said in a statement after his meeting with Zelenskyy that he is supportive of Ukraine’s fight against Russia, but that “our first condition on any national security supplemental spending package is about our own national security first.”

“(W)e needed a transformative change at the border,” Johnson said. “(T)hese are our conditions because these are the conditions of the American people, and we are resolute on that.”

White House request

The Biden administration in October asked Congress to approve more than $105 billion in emergency aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the U.S. border.

Senate Democrats released a $110.5 billion spending package last week that would have provided funding for all four of those areas. But Republicans blocked the bill from moving forward, insisting the legislation include changes to immigration policy.

Those talks have been stuck for weeks as a bipartisan group of senators attempted to broker an agreement.

The group — headed by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford — have so far been unable to settle on a deal that appeals to both conservatives and progressives.

Murphy said Tuesday that negotiations on border security “continue to make progress.”

“We’ve made some proposals that, you know, put us outside of our Democratic comfort zone,” Murphy said. “We need Republicans to stretch, and if they do, we can get there.”

He added that the White House got involved in negotiations over the weekend.

“As we get closer to an agreement, they have to be at the table,” Murphy said of the Biden administration.

Graham calls Murphy ‘very unhelpful’

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he felt Zelenskyy was being used by Democrats in negotiations about border security and that he disagrees that “Ukraine’s losing the war.”

“Senator Murphy has been very unhelpful,” Graham said, referring to earlier comments in which Murphy and Democrats accused Republicans of holding aid to Ukraine hostage if there are no policy changes to the Southern border. “His attitude about what’s going on is off base — we’re not holding the border hostage.”

Graham added he’s not confident that an agreement on border security can be reached by Murphy.

“I have no confidence he’s ever going to get a deal we can live with because he’s worried about selling it to the left,” Graham said.

A major sticking point for Democrats is the push from Republicans to make changes to the asylum system that Democrats argue would set a higher bar for asylum seekers for initial “credible fear of persecution” screenings.

Graham said he is willing to work with Johnson on getting any deal through the GOP-led House.

“(Johnson) will stand up to the anti-Ukraine votes if you give him something to work with,” Graham said. “I will help him do that.”

Graham said he told Zelenskyy that Ukraine funding is in peril because of the Biden administration’s border policies. He added that Zelenskyy has “done everything anybody could ask of you,” and that the snag in border security negotiations is not

Ukraine’s problem.

“You didn’t make this problem,” Graham said of Zelenskyy. “It will affect you, in fact, the whole world. But (the Biden administration’s) policy choices matter.”

Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican, said that any aid to Ukraine is “not going to happen” unless the Southern border is addressed in the supplemental.

In the emergency supplemental, Senate Democrats included $1.42 billion for staff hires for immigration judges, such as clerks, attorneys and interpreters; $5.31 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to expand border security, such as fentanyl detection; and $2.35 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for operational costs, fentanyl detection and enforcement.

“There will be no national security bill … it has to be addressed,” Barrasso said of the border security policies.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/12/zelenskyy-pitches-congress-on-ukraine-military-aid-but-its-tied-to-stalled-border-talks/feed/ 0
U.S. Supreme Court asked to quickly rule on Trump claims of presidential immunity https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/us-supreme-court-asked-to-quickly-rule-on-trump-claims-of-presidential-immunity/ Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:34:21 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=18099

Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment against former President Donald Trump at the Justice Department on June 9, 2023 in Washington, D.C. Smith in a separate election interference case on Monday, Dec. 11, 2023 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite a decision on Trump’s claims of presidential immunity (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to expedite a decision on former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case.

Smith asked the justices to rule on a matter that ordinarily would first go to a lower federal appeals court, arguing that another layer of appellate action would likely mean the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the case until its term beginning in fall 2024, delaying the trial even further.

Such a delay would push a Supreme Court decision into the heat of a general election, when Trump is favored to again be the Republican candidate for president.

A definitive answer from the Supreme Court would keep the trial slated to begin March 4, 2024, on schedule, Smith said.

“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith wrote. “This is an extraordinary case.”

District court ruling

The case, one of four criminal proceedings the former president faces as he campaigns for another term in the White House, involves claims he sought to illegally overturn his reelection loss in 2020.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on the argument that as a former president, he is protected from criminal prosecution and that he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate in an impeachment trial.

Trump appealed that ruling last week to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, an intermediate venue between the district court and the Supreme Court, and asked the trial court to pause proceedings while the appeal is ongoing.

Trump’s legal team in early October filed a motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity.

The scheduling situation is similar to what courts faced as President Richard Nixon’s 1974 trial date on charges related to the Watergate scandal approached, Smith said Monday. In that case, the Supreme Court accepted prosecutors’ argument and expedited the appeal, he wrote, adding that the high court should make a similar ruling for Trump.

“It is of paramount public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved as expeditiously as possible — and, if respondent is not immune, that he receive a fair and speedy trial on these charges,” Smith wrote. “The public, respondent, and the government are entitled to nothing less.”

Prosecutors also asked the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court on Monday to expedite Trump’s appeal in that court if the Supreme Court declines to rule on the issue.

Election interference and other criminal charges

A federal grand jury indicted Trump in August on four counts for his alleged role in knowingly attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election results through a series of illegal actions and false statements that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia included conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

The 45-page indictment details false statements that Trump and unnamed co-conspirators made about election results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the subsequent fake electors scheme the group devised for those states.

The indictment also detailed Trump’s pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to “enlist” him in overturning election results.

Trump is facing four criminal cases as well as civil proceedings over his business matters in New York state as he leads in several polls ahead of the 2024 Republican presidential primary season. With less than five weeks left before the Iowa first-in-the-nation GOP presidential caucuses, a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Medicacom poll released Monday found Trump is the first choice of 51% of caucus-goers surveyed.

In addition to federal election fraud charges in Washington, D.C. scheduled for trial in March, Trump is facing another potential March criminal trial in New York state for alleged hush money payments to an adult film star.

The former president also faces a federal criminal trial in Florida in May over felony charges alleging he removed classified documents from the White House at the end of his presidency and improperly stored them at Mar-a-Lago, his South Florida estate.

A trial date has not been set for a Georgia indictment alleging that Trump and several co-defendants engaged in racketeering and criminal organization to interfere with 2020 presidential election results.

Attorneys for Trump did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

]]>
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to exit Congress, along with a flock of other lawmakers https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/former-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-to-exit-congress-along-with-a-flock-of-other-lawmakers/ Wed, 06 Dec 2023 21:06:36 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=18051

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., speaks with members of the media in the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 30, 2023 in Washington, D.C. McCarthy, who was ousted as speaker on Oct. 3, announced his retirement on Dec. 6 (Nathan Howard/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy Wednesday joined the growing list of Congress members heading for the U.S. Capitol exits.

McCarthy’s planned departure by year’s end, following the expulsion of disgraced New York Republican Congressman George Santos, will leave the House GOP with a razor-thin majority in 2024.

The California Republican’s announcement also came one day after his ally Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina declared he will not seek reelection but will serve out the rest of his term.

McHenry served as Speaker Pro Tempore after McCarthy was ousted by eight House Republicans and all Democrats in early October.

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led the charge on McCarthy’s ouster, posted a one-word reaction on X Wednesday — “McLeavin,’” he wrote — seemingly playing on McCarthy’s name, his decision to retire and the 2007 teen comedy “Superbad,” which featured a character named McLovin.

McCarthy ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia issued a response on X criticizing hard-right members for pushing the former House leader out.

“Well.. Now in 2024, we will have a 1 seat majority in the House of Representatives. Congratulations Freedom Caucus for one and 105 Rep who expel our own for the other,” Greene wrote. “I can assure you Republican voters didn’t give us the majority to crash the ship. Hopefully no one dies.”

The majority margin depends on which GOP members are present and voting during House floor votes.

‘You have a wave’

In addition to McCarthy and McHenry, nine House GOP members have announced retirement or decided to run for a different elected office.

Another, Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio, is planning to resign in March 2024 to take the job as president of Youngstown State University.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who previously represented his state in the U.S. House for 10 years, told reporters Wednesday that he doesn’t attribute the swell of retirement announcements to tension in the House.

“Every year, this time of the year you have a wave,” he said. “There’s gonna be another wave right before we come back from Christmas, too. So I don’t think it has anything to do with that. It’s just that people are re-thinking why they’re here.”

Across the aisle, 21 House Democrats will retire or run for a different elected position, and longtime Democratic Congressman Brian Higgins of New York plans to resign in February 2024.

Here’s a rundown of House Republicans who are leaving:

  • Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, seeking retiring U.S. Sen. Mike Braun’s seat.
  • Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina, running for North Carolina attorney general.
  • Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio, leaving Congress March 2024.
  • Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, leaving Congress December 2023.
  • Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Alex Mooney of West Virginia, running for retiring U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin’s seat.
  • Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, not seeking reelection in 2024.
  • Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, not seeking reelection in 2024.

Several House Democrats are running for U.S. Senate, including:

  • Ruben Gallego of Arizona
  • Barbara Lee of California
  • Katie Porter of California
  • Adam Schiff of California
  • Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware
  • Elissa Slotkin of Michigan
  • David Trone of Maryland
  • Andy Kim of New Jersey
  • Colin Allred of Texas

Virginia’s Rep. Abigail Spanberger announced a run for governor, while Rep. Jeff Jackson of North Carolina is running for his state’s attorney general position.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas is running for mayor of Houston.

Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota declared a long shot run for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.

Three House Democrats from California who have said they will not seek re-election are Tony Cárdenas, Anna Eshoo and Grace Napolitano.

Others stepping down include Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Dan Kildee of Michigan, Derek Kilmer of Washington, John Sarbanes of Maryland and Jennifer Wexton of Virginia.

Senate retirements

The makeup of the U.S. Senate will change in 2025, leaving the majority hanging in the balance as Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio are expected to face tough races.

Manchin, of West Virginia, announced Nov. 9 that he would not seek reelection, potentially opening a path for the state’s Republican Gov. Jim Justice, who announced a Senate run in April.

Other Democratic mainstays who will not seek reelection include Maryland’s 80-year-old Ben Cardin who has served three terms; fourth-term, 76-year-old Tom Carper of Delaware; and 73-year-old Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, also in her fourth term.

Upon Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s death in September, Laphonza Butler filled California’s vacant Senate seat. Butler will not seek reelection.

GOP Sens. Mike Braun of Indiana and Mitt Romney of Utah have announced retirements.

–Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

]]>
Senators review of U.S. investments in China but hit roadblock in House https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/05/senators-push-review-of-u-s-investments-in-china-but-hits-roadblock-in-house/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/05/senators-push-review-of-u-s-investments-in-china-but-hits-roadblock-in-house/#respond Tue, 05 Dec 2023 19:10:41 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=18034

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., talks to reporters prior to a Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on May 10, 2022 in Washington, D.C. Casey is pushing for defense policy legislation to include a Senate-passed amendment he and GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas sponsored (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan measure that would require screening of U.S. private investments in high-tech enterprises in China, Iran, North Korea and Russia may not be included in Congress’ annual defense policy legislation.

The Senate approved the so-called “outbound investment” amendment, 91-6, to its version of the National Defense Authorization Act in July, with proponents arguing it was needed to keep adversaries around the globe from gaining access to sensitive technologies funded by U.S. dollars.

But Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, one of its original sponsors, is concerned House GOP members are blocking the measure from reaching the final text of the defense legislation, known as NDAA.

Lawmakers from both chambers have been working to reconcile the House and Senate defense bills. A final compromise legislation is expected to be unveiled as early as this week.

“House Republicans have talked a big game on China, but House leadership — Speaker (Mike) Johnson and Financial Services Chairman (Patrick) McHenry — are stopping our bill from being passed at the eleventh hour,” Casey, a Democrat, said in a statement to States Newsroom Friday.

“Instead of holding the Chinese government accountable, they’ve chosen to help President Xi Jinping against the interests of the American people.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas sponsored the legislation alongside Casey.

Upon passage of the bill, Cornyn warned that “(w)hen American companies invest in technology like semiconductors or AI in countries like China and Russia, their capital, intellectual property, and innovation can fall into the wrong hands and be weaponized against us.”

“This bill would increase the visibility of these investments, which will help the U.S. gather the information needed to better evaluate our national security vulnerabilities, confront threats from our adversaries, and remain competitive on the global stage,” he said in July.

Johnson and McHenry’s offices did not respond to requests for comment.

Notification required

The Casey-Cornyn amendment would require U.S. corporations and other entities to notify the secretary of the Treasury prior to deals involving artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, satellite communications and quantum computing.

However, McHenry, chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, warned in a late November letter to negotiators that the measure, Section 1085 of the Senate-passed NDAA version,  “would create a new bureaucracy to regulate Americans’ investments abroad, including in China.”

“While we appreciate the intentions and objectives of Section 1085, the result of this provision would be to strengthen rather than weaken the objectives of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party,” wrote McHenry, a North Carolina Republican.

McHenry argued that the advantage of outbound investment is having Americans at the table in the “world’s most opaque major economy.”

The letter was co-signed by Republicans Andy Barr of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, French Hill of Arkansas, and Bill Huizenga of Michigan, all chairs of House Financial Services subcommittees.

McHenry and co-signers maintain that there’s “a misconception that U.S. investors are fueling China’s economic growth,” citing a 10-year low of U.S. venture capital investment in China concluded in an August analysis from the economic research firm Rhodium Group.

No reviews of investments overseas

Unlike the monitoring of some foreign investment that comes into the U.S., no federal law exists to screen the dollars American companies are investing outside the nation.

The Biden administration in August issued an executive order to require U.S. investors to notify the government about deals in China, Hong Kong and Macao in advanced technologies, including semiconductors, quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The order also prohibits some transactions involving sensitive technologies.

The executive order, which is not law, establishes a narrower geographic area than the Casey-Cornyn amendment, but it does include certain prohibitions.

U.S. outbound investment totaled $6.58 trillion at the end of 2022, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Most was concentrated in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland and Canada. Just over $1 trillion landed in Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, while roughly $951 million went to Asia and the Pacific. The Middle East and Africa were near the bottom of the list with just over $80 million and $46 million respectively.

Another legislative option?

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs marked up a similar bill in November that would require U.S. investors to notify U.S. officials of advanced tech deals, adding hypersonics to the list of covered sectors.

Like the White House executive order, the bill would also prohibit certain transactions, going further than the Casey-Cornyn amendment.

Countries of concern listed in the legislation include China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

“Building upon efforts of Senators Cornyn and Casey added to the FY 24 National Defense Authorization Act, this bill will help ensure there are vital restrictions and enhanced transparency on outbound investment to safeguard America. The U.S. investment of today should not fund the Chinese Communist Party hypersonic program of today or tomorrow,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, and ranking member Gregory Meeks of New York said in a joint statement Nov. 13.

Committee members hope that the bill will be considered by House GOP leadership during the first quarter of 2024, according to a majority staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Defense policy bill

The NDAA is the annual defense policy bill that continues defense policies, nuclear weapons programs and authorizes defense-related spending.

Lawmakers often use the massive bill as a vehicle for various policy matters because Congress consistently enacts the legislation each year.

The House version, which would authorize $874.2 billion and contains language targeting abortion access, transgender health and racial equity, passed the lower chamber in July in a 219-210 vote.

The upper chamber approved its version, which would authorize $876.8 billion, in August in a 86-11 vote.

The legislation does not appropriate, or give, money for the Department of Defense and other relevant federal agencies. Rather, the bill authorizes how the funds should be spent.

The 2023 NDAA authorized $847.3 billion.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/05/senators-push-review-of-u-s-investments-in-china-but-hits-roadblock-in-house/feed/ 0
GOP senators walk out of vote on subpoenas in U.S. Supreme Court ethics inquiry https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/30/gop-senators-walk-out-of-vote-on-subpoenas-in-u-s-supreme-court-ethics-inquiry/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/30/gop-senators-walk-out-of-vote-on-subpoenas-in-u-s-supreme-court-ethics-inquiry/#respond Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:31:47 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17977

Committee ranking member U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Republicans stormed out of a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Nov. 30, 2023, where members were voting on subpoenas in connection with an inquiry into U.S. Supreme Court justices’ ethics. Graham is shown speaking during a Nov. 9 meeting of the committee (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Republican colleagues stormed out of a Democratic-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Thursday to authorize subpoenas for two high-profile GOP operatives as part of an ethics probe into undisclosed financial ties to U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The panel voted 11-0 to subpoena billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and well-connected conservative leader Leonard Leo. All Republican members left the meeting in protest prior to the roll call vote.

The vote may be contested by Republicans as committee rules state that at least two members of the minority must be present for a quorum during committee business.  Democrats maintain that they had a quorum, according to the committee’s majority staff.

“I think they violated the rules,” Graham told States Newsroom on his way to the Senate chamber Thursday afternoon.

The subpoena vote came after a year of revelations about Supreme Court justices’ failure to disclose luxury travel and real estate deals.

Investigative journalists for ProPublica in April chronicled that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas never disclosed private jet and yacht excursions paid for by Crow. The nonprofit investigative outfit also revealed that Thomas did not disclose a real estate transaction with Crow.

In June, ProPublica revealed that Justice Samuel Alito attended a fishing expedition in Alaska organized by Republican donors, including Leo and a billionaire whose companies have had matters before the court.

Committee Chair Dick Durbin maintained that Leo and Crow have refused to comply with the committee’s probe.

“Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are central players in this crisis. Their attempts to thwart the legitimate oversight efforts of the Congress should concern all of us,” said Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “As I’ve said before I do not seek this authorization lightly and do not ask for it often.”

Graham: ‘politically motivated’ push

Senate Republicans on the panel slammed the subpoenas.

Ranking member Graham characterized the Democrats’ argument as “garbage” and “politically motivated.”

Thursday’s committee meeting marked Durbin’s second attempt to vote on the subpoena authorizations. The chair cut short a Nov. 9 committee meeting when votes were scheduled because of “scheduling issues.”

Durbin said Thursday committee Republicans have tried to stall the votes by filing 177 amendments to his subpoena authorizations.

“The vast majority of which have nothing to do with the Supreme Court ethics crisis,” Durbin said.

GOP panel members did not offer up any of the amendments during the meeting and instead left en masse.

Graham initially remained seated for a vote Durbin called to suspend debate, and essentially speed up the process. The vote was 11-1, with Graham casting the sole no vote.

Leo’s spokesperson Adam Kennedy did not provide comment in response to Thursday’s committee vote.

In an Oct. 19 letter to Durbin, Leo’s attorney wrote that “(i)n committee Democrats’ imagining Mr. Leo is a ‘right-wing’ ‘fixer’ who sits atop a conspiracy to capture the Supreme Court …”

“It is not our responsibility to aid in that partisan effort, and we choose not to do so today,” attorney David B. Rivkin Jr. of BakerHostetler LLC wrote in the letter’s conclusion.

A statement issued Thursday attributed to the Office of Harlan Crow criticized the committee’s vote as “invalid.”

“Despite the unenforceability of the subpoena, Mr. Crow remains willing to engage with the Committee in good faith, just as he has consistently done throughout this process. Mr. Crow offered extensive information responsive to the Committee’s requests despite his strong objections to its necessity and legality,” continued the statement sent by communications and public affairs firm Bullpen Strategy .

A SCOTUS ethics code

Since the committee last met, the Supreme Court released an ethics code signed by all nine justices.

The 15-page code of conduct, issued Nov. 13, is a new maneuver by the court to publicize its standards. The document states in its opening that the rules are “not new” and that the court has “long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules.”

But Durbin maintains the code falls “far short.”

“This court’s statement on the code specifically notes … ‘For the most part these rules are not new.’ That’s a tell. It was the old way of doing things that brought the reputation of the court to a new low in public opinion,” Durbin said.

An ethics law for justices?

Graham argued Thursday that rather than authorize subpoenas, the committee should address the issue legislatively with an ethics bill that was reported out of committee along party lines. He accused Democrats of slow walking the bill.

“I don’t think you’re remotely interested in bringing up the bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you really cared about this, we’d be on the floor a long time ago debating fixing this problem,” Graham said.

In July the panel voted 11-10 to send the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act to the full Senate.

The proposal, sponsored by Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, would establish new conflict of interest rules for Supreme Court justices and the federal judiciary at large.

If passed by the upper chamber, the bill would also compel the court to establish a publicly available code of conduct and an official complaint procedure, among other transparency measures including requiring minimum gift, travel and income disclosures.

Senate leadership placed the bill on the chamber’s legislative calendar but it has not yet come to the floor.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/30/gop-senators-walk-out-of-vote-on-subpoenas-in-u-s-supreme-court-ethics-inquiry/feed/ 0
Israel and Hamas agree to temporary cease-fire, hostage release deal https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/israel-and-hamas-agree-to-temporary-cease-fire-hostage-release-deal/ Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:27:11 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=17911

Trucks carrying aid await an opportunity to enter Gaza via the Rafah crossing on November 22, 2023 in Arish, Egypt. Early Wednesday morning, Israel and Hamas announced a four-day truce that would pause fighting in the war that’s raged since Oct. 7. Media reports indicate that, as part of the deal, 200 aid trucks, four fuel tankers, and four trucks carrying gas, will be able to enter Gaza via Egypt’s Rafah crossing on each of the four days (Ali Moustafa/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Israel and Hamas have reached a deal for a short-term humanitarian ceasefire that will allow the release of some hostages and increase humanitarian aid into the besieged Gaza Strip, U.S. officials said late Tuesday.

President Joe Biden praised the agreement to release 50 of the approximately 240 hostages taken by Hamas during the militant group’s deadly attack on Israel in early October.

“Jill and I have been keeping all those held hostage and their loved ones close to our hearts these many weeks, and I am extraordinarily gratified that some of these brave souls, who have endured weeks of captivity and an unspeakable ordeal, will be reunited with their families once this deal is fully implemented,” Biden said in a late Tuesday night statement.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that American citizens would be among the 50 hostages released by Hamas in the coming days.

Qatar’s Ministry of Affairs said in a statement on X that the start time of the deal would be announced within 24 hours and would last four days. The deal will include an “exchange for the release of a number of Palestinian women and children” held in Israel, according to the statement.

Biden thanked the governments of Egypt and Qatar for “their critical leadership” securing the deal.

“And I appreciate the commitment that (Israeli) Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu and his government have made in supporting an extended pause to ensure this deal can be fully carried out and to ensure the provision of additional humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of innocent Palestinian families in Gaza,” Biden said.

Hamas militants launched an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, killing roughly 1,200 people, including 33 Americans. U.S. officials initially reported that 20 Americans were missing after the attack and could be among the more than 200 hostages.

Four hostages have been released and an Israeli soldier was rescued in the weeks since the Hamas attack. Of those, two American hostages, a mother and daughter, were released on Oct. 20, just days after Biden visited Israel.

The death toll in the Gaza Strip is estimated to be anywhere from 11,000 to 14,000, with about half children, according to different sources, including recent reporting from the WAFA Palestine News and Info Agency.

Associated Press reports from Jerusalem on Tuesday cite Gaza officials saying they’ve lost the ability to count casualties since Israel began counterstrikes in early October. Their last official update on Nov. 10 estimated 11,078 killed.

Several House Democrats have called for a long term cease-fire. Those voices include the chamber’s only Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, whom colleagues voted to censure over Israel remarks.

Following the Hamas attack on Israel, Tlaib issued a statement mourning “Palestinian and Israeli lives lost,” but called Israeli policy “apartheid” that would lead to “resistance.”

Democratic Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, who along with Tlaib supports a permanent cease-fire, praised the deal Wednesday.

“I welcome, with relief, the return of hostages to their families and pray for the return of all of them. This deal proves that diplomacy is possible,” Lee posted to X.

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote on X that she was “glad to hear that dozens of innocent hostages that were kidnapped and tortured by disgusting terrorists will finally be released after being held captive for over a month.”

“We must free all of the hostages,” Blackburn said. “We should be calling on Hamas to surrender. There can be no ceasefire.”

Blinken credited the “tireless diplomacy and relentless effort” of State Department officials and Middle East partners.

“While this deal marks significant progress, we will not rest as long as Hamas continues to hold hostages in Gaza,” Blinken said in a statement Tuesday night. “My highest priority is the safety and security of Americans overseas, and we will continue our efforts to secure the release of every hostage and their swift reunification with their families.”

Netanyahu said Wednesday that fighting will continue following the pause.

“There is a lot of nonsense out there to the effect that after the pause to return our hostages, we will stop the war. Then let me make it clear: We are at war — and will continue the war,” Netanyahu said in a statement posted on Israel’s government website. “We will continue the war until we achieve all of our war aims: To eliminate Hamas, return all of our hostages and our missing, and ensure that there is no element in Gaza that threatens Israel.”

On Sunday, Israel’s military released what it said was video footage of two foreign national hostages from inside Gaza’s Al-Shifa hospital, according to multiple media reports.

Israel began raids on the hospital on Nov. 15 after claiming Hamas was using the site as a command center. American and international news organizations have not been able to independently verify the claim.

Hamas, which the U.S. designated a terrorist organization in the late 1990s, seized control of the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007.

The latest conflict is the fifth between Israel and Hamas militants. Previous Israel-Hamas wars were in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021.

]]>
Tuberville blockade of military nominees could be evaded after move by U.S. Senate panel https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/15/tuberville-blockade-of-military-nominees-could-be-evaded-after-move-by-u-s-senate-panel/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/15/tuberville-blockade-of-military-nominees-could-be-evaded-after-move-by-u-s-senate-panel/#respond Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:05:41 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17819

Marine Corps Base Quantico sword detail members march in formation during a ceremony honoring the 248th Marine Corps birthday in Virginia, Nov. 7, 2023 (Marine Corps Cpl. Mitchell Johnson/Department of Defense photo).

WASHINGTON — The Democratic-led Senate Committee on Rules and Administration approved a resolution meant to bypass Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s blockade of hundreds of U.S. military nominees as he continues to protest a Pentagon abortion policy.

The Rules Committee voted 9-7 along party lines to, in essence, temporarily change a Senate floor process to allow votes on large groups of military nominees rather than having to approve them one by one. The resolution is seen as temporary because it would extend through the end of this session of Congress rather than permanently.

Whether Democrats can gain enough votes from across the aisle to support the change on the floor is unclear.

The Senate has routinely confirmed large blocs of military nominees under the unanimous consent process, meaning all senators agree to approve the nominees without calling a floor vote on each one.

Tuberville, a Republican, has been objecting to the time-saving unanimous consent process since the spring to display his opposition to a policy that grants members of the armed services time off and travel reimbursement when seeking an abortion in states where it remains unrestricted. The Pentagon policy was authorized after last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who sits on the Rules Committee, said the change would allow “swift confirmation” of the nominees and that he plans to bring it to the floor “shortly” if his GOP colleagues cannot convince Tuberville to drop his freeze on the nominations.

“We need to get these military nominees confirmed ASAP for the sake of our national security. Military nominees for a decade have been the most bipartisan parts of the Senate,” Schumer said.

“The idea of blocking the confirmation of military officers in order to make a political statement, no matter how deeply felt, has long been considered — long been considered — unthinkable,” he said, moving his hands to emphasize his point.

But Republican leadership is advising against changing the Senate procedure.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that while Tuberville’s “nearly unprecedented” strategy “is not — not — the way to reach the desired outcome he and I share,” he will not support the proposed detour around Tuberville’s nomination holds.

“Ultimately the best path forward for everyone involved will be one that allows us to clear the nominations backlog and preserve our substantive opposition to the Biden administration’s atrocious policy,” McConnell said.

The resolution introduced by Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, is in response to the growing list of unconfirmed military nominees stalled by Tuberville.

As of Tuesday, 359 of the more than 450 nominees awaiting confirmation are affected by Tuberville’s blanket hold, according to the Pentagon.

Vote on floor potentially next

Reed, chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said in a statement after the Rules Committee vote that his Alabama counterpart is using “a hyper-partisan maneuver to try and weaponize the military promotion process.”

“Indefinitely blocking all these merit-based military promotions has harmed the national security of the United States,” said Reed, who crafted the resolution with support from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent.

Reed characterized the resolution as “bipartisan.”

“This resolution offers every member of the Senate a chance to vote to either support or overcome this irresponsible blockade.  I have faith that senators from both parties care deeply about our service men and women and will do the right thing,” said Reed.

The standing order resolution could now head to the Senate floor, where Democrats, who hold a slim majority, will need the support of nine Republicans to meet the threshold for approval.

No amendments were filed ahead of Tuesday’s committee vote, said Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, who quickly called the vote roughly 20 minutes into the meeting.

“We need to do what it takes to make sure our military has its leaders in place to protect our country,” said Klobuchar of Minnesota.

‘Political maneuver’ 

Republicans largely characterized the change as a blow to the minority’s leverage, despite the Democrats’ argument that the new procedure would expire at the end of the 118th Congress.

The Rules Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, dismissed the resolution as a “political maneuver.”

“At its core, the resolution is an attempt to protect the Biden administration’s poor policy decisions,” Fischer said in her opening remarks.

She, and many of her Senate GOP colleagues including Tuberville, argue that despite a prohibition of taxpayer funds for abortion, the policy “facilitates abortions by paying for travel across state lines to obtain one.”

“This policy not only goes beyond the Department of Defense’s statutory authority, it doesn’t do anything to increase our military readiness and hasn’t even been broadly utilized. Unofficial reports indicate it likely has been used by only 12 women,” Fischer said.

The Biden administration and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin maintain the policy is legal.

The Department of Justice in 2022 delivered an opinion assessing the policy as lawful.

The Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn the federal right to abortion has left a patchwork of state-by-state regulations on the practice.

Roughly 80,000 active-duty female service members are stationed in states where legislatures enacted full or partial bans, according to RAND.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/15/tuberville-blockade-of-military-nominees-could-be-evaded-after-move-by-u-s-senate-panel/feed/ 0
Biden administration warns of dangers of turning down Ukraine aid as GOP voices doubts https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-administration-warns-of-dangers-of-turning-down-ukraine-aid-as-gop-voices-doubts/ Wed, 08 Nov 2023 23:06:42 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=17726

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. left, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., right, walk Sept. 21 with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the U.S. Capitol Building. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

]]>
VA reports major uptick in veterans’ care after passage of toxic exposure law https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/va-reports-major-uptick-in-veterans-care-after-passage-of-toxic-exposure-law/ https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/va-reports-major-uptick-in-veterans-care-after-passage-of-toxic-exposure-law/#respond Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:15:19 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17691

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough, speaking at the National Press Club on Nov. 6, 2023, said that veterans’ care in the United States set all-time records in fiscal year 2023, in large part because of an expansion of benefits under the Biden administration through a law known as the PACT Act. In the photo shown, U.S. military veterans listen as Vice President Kamala Harris gives remarks at a Veterans Day ceremony in the amphitheater of Arlington National Cemetery on Nov. 11, 2022, in Arlington, Virginia (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Veterans’ care in the United States set all-time records in fiscal year 2023, “shattering” the agency’s performance in previous years, in large part because of an expansion of benefits under the Biden administration, U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough said Monday.

McDonough spoke at the National Press Club less than a week out from Veterans Day and a little over a year after President Joe Biden signed a law that opened benefits eligibility for up to 3.5 million post-9/11 veterans, and for those who served during the Vietnam and Cold War eras.

Veterans experiencing a mental health crisis or suicidal thoughts should dial 988 or chat at https://988lifeline.org/.

The Sgt 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, or the PACT Act, provides that roughly two dozen chronic conditions and illnesses are presumed to be caused by breathing toxins from open burn pits or exposure to other hazards, including Agent Orange and radiation.

“Since President Biden took office, VA has delivered more care and more benefits to more veterans than ever before. When it comes to the benefits veterans have earned and deserve, we’re processing their claims faster than ever,” McDonough said at the luncheon in downtown Washington, D.C.

Screening for effects of toxic exposure

Under the new law, the VA has screened nearly 4.6 million veterans for lasting effects of toxic exposure during their deployments, according to Department of Veterans Affairs figures released Monday.

At the one-year anniversary of enacting the law, Biden said more than $1.85 billion in PACT-Act related benefits had reached veterans and families.

The legislation received broad bipartisan support in both chambers during the summer of 2022 but was held up for weeks at the tail end of the process after retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania, rallied GOP colleagues to block a final procedural vote as a protest to funding language that had been in the bill all along.

Among the statistics Veterans Affairs highlighted Monday:

  • $163 billion in benefits was delivered to just over 1.5 million veterans and survivors ($150 billion of the total went toward compensation and pension payments).
  • Veterans submitted 2.4 million claims, up 39% from 2022.
  • Just over 1.9 million claims were processed for veterans and survivors, up 15.9% over the previous record.
  • 116 million health care appointments were made, surpassing the last record by 3 million.
  • Roughly 1 million calls, texts and chats were received by the Veterans Crisis Line, up 15.1% from a previous record for the hotline.
  • Emergency care was provided for 33,542 acute suicidal crises at no cost under a new program started in January.

McDonough credited the increased usage and services to upgraded digital tools, including telehealth options and an “overhauled” VA.gov, which now serves as “the digital front door for all services VA offers vets.”

“As a result, vets’ trust in VA has grown strong. Again, it’s not 100% but it’s stronger,” McDonough said.

According to the agency’s survey measuring trust in the VA, 78.9% of veterans expressed current VA-wide trust in the third quarter of 2023, down 0.4% since last quarter’s survey.

When broken down by gender, 80% of male veterans expressed trust compared to 71.2% of female veterans.

McDonough also credited a hiring boom at the agency for more claims being processed.

“This has been a year of hiring at record pace while retaining our record staff and, by the way, not retaining our not excellent staff,” he said.

The Veterans Benefits Administration now employs more than 32,000, according to McDonough.

“The claims process is overwhelmingly moved by a simple entry point, which is more people reviewing claims. So that’s one way we’re addressing this,” McDonough said.

The population of living veterans was estimated at 16.2 million, according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey.

Veterans can contact the agency for benefits information or register for a toxic exposure screening at VA.gov or by calling 1-800-MyVA411.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/va-reports-major-uptick-in-veterans-care-after-passage-of-toxic-exposure-law/feed/ 0
U.S. Senate GOP colleagues fight Tuberville hold as top military nominees trickle through https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/03/u-s-senate-gop-colleagues-fight-tuberville-hold-as-top-military-nominees-trickle-through/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/03/u-s-senate-gop-colleagues-fight-tuberville-hold-as-top-military-nominees-trickle-through/#respond Fri, 03 Nov 2023 11:59:06 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17655

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, has been refusing to join other senators in the routine promotion of large groups of military nominees through a quick unanimous consent process (Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are pushing back on Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s blockade of hundreds of U.S. military promotions as the upper chamber fills the remaining vacancies on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Senators on Thursday approved Adm. Lisa Franchetti in a 95-1 vote to be the first woman to lead the U.S. Navy. Gen. David W. Allvin’s nomination to be the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force cleared the chamber also in a 95-1 vote. Republican Roger Marshall of Kansas was the lone dissenting vote on both confirmations.

The Senate also approved Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, 86-0, to be the U.S. Marines’ second in command after its top general experienced a serious medical emergency Sunday.

Both Tuberville and GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska collected signatures for petitions to jumpstart movement on the nominees.

But Tuberville said Thursday he won’t drop his hold on more than 370 additional nominees. The Alabama Republican has delayed the process for several months in protest of a recent Department of Defense reproductive care policy that grants service members leave and travel allowances if they need to seek care in U.S. states where abortion remains legal.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn the federal right to abortion has left a patchwork of state-by-state regulations on the practice. Roughly 80,000 active-duty female service members are stationed in states where legislatures enacted full or partial bans, according to RAND.

The Biden administration and Pentagon officials maintain the policy is legal.

Tuberville: ‘Bring them up for a vote’

If his colleagues want to approve more nominees, Tuberville told reporters, “Well, that’s good. Bring them up for a vote, sign a petition like me, give it to Schumer and in 48 hours you got a vote. And that’s all they gotta do. I don’t think some of them even know the rules.” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is the majority leader in the Democratic-controlled chamber.

On Wednesday night, GOP senators, including Sullivan and military veteran Joni Ernst of Iowa, held the Senate floor for nearly four hours asking for unanimous approval of just over 60 of the nominees, one-by-one. Tuberville objected each time.

“That’s what we gave him last night, he objected to all 61 individual votes on the floor of the Senate. So I’m not sure what Senator Tuberville wants now,” Ernst, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, told reporters Thursday.

Tuberville has been obstructing the nominees since February by refusing to join a time-saving unanimous consent process in which senators can approve large blocs of nominees at once rather than enduring the hours- or days-long process to vote on each nominee.

Sullivan, currently a colonel in the U.S. Marines Corps Reserve, said Wednesday night on the floor that the nominees “have made huge sacrifices, multiple deployments, and now their careers are being punished by a policy dispute they had nothing to do with and no power to resolve.”

Another way out?

The list of unconfirmed nominees has only continued to grow and could reach 650 by year’s end, according to the Pentagon.

Ernst told reporters Thursday that outside anti-abortion groups should be seeking someone with legal standing to take the issue to court, rather than rely on Tuberville’s protest holds.

“If they believe in life, they should be stepping up and challenging this darn policy. We feel it’s illegal. They feel it’s illegal, then do something about it,” she said.

Senate Republicans will continue to file discharge positions to keep a slow trickle of nominees moving through the chamber, Ernst said, but she disagrees with a Democratic proposal to bypass Tuberville’s holds.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, introduced a bill Tuesday that would tweak the chamber’s rules to allow votes on nominees en bloc, rather than having to do them individually.

The rules adjustment would last for the duration of the 118th Congress.

“Well, certainly last night showed there are a number of Republicans that understand we have to get these confirmations done. I think what we’re proposing is a very simple way to do it,” Reed, a Democrat, told reporters Thursday.

Reed would need the support of nine Republicans for his proposal to reach the needed 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

“We all need to be part of that solution, OK. But I’m not willing to commit to a rules change. That’s the last thing we want to see,” Ernst said.

Tuberville’s spokesperson Steven Stafford also received attention Thursday when Politico reported on a leaked email in which Stafford suggested to outside groups that any Senate Republicans who voted with Democrats “will be primaried.”

Stafford sent the email on Oct. 26, within a day of when Reed’s proposal came to light.

Tuberville said Wednesday night on the floor that he intends to “keep my holds in place until the Pentagon follows the law or the Democrats change the law.”

The Alabama Republican and former Auburn University football coach said the policy is “illegal and immoral.”

“The Pentagon is now paying for travel and extra time off for service members and their dependents to get abortions. Congress never voted for this. We also never appropriated the money for this. There is no law that allows them to do this,” Tuberville said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/03/u-s-senate-gop-colleagues-fight-tuberville-hold-as-top-military-nominees-trickle-through/feed/ 0
Biden launches ‘Investing in Rural America’ push with cabinet officials https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/biden-launches-investing-in-rural-america-push-with-cabinet-officials/ Wed, 01 Nov 2023 13:17:01 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=17625

President Joe Biden and administration officials are kicking off an “Investing in Rural America” event series, starting with a visit to a Minnesota farm Wednesday. Shown is farm equipment rolling down an Iowa highway as harvest gets underway (Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and administration officials are kicking off an “Investing in Rural America” event series, starting with a visit to a Minnesota farm Wednesday to announce nearly $5 billion for conservation, economic development and “climate smart” agriculture.

Biden, who is running for reelection in 2024, has been highlighting what the administration calls “Bidenomics” for months as the presidential campaign season escalates. However, polling has found many Americans continue to be pessimistic about the economy, despite the upbeat message from the White House.

Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials will be “barnstorming across the country” for the next two weeks, according to the White House. Visits will include stops in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

In addition to the agriculture dollars, the administration will highlight hundreds of millions for high-speed internet and renewable energy in rural areas.

The programs are funded by a combination of dollars earmarked under 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and American Rescue Plan of 2021, laws that Biden points to as milestones of his administration.

“This is an exciting opportunity to celebrate the importance of rural America and to reflect the Biden-Harris administration’s deep commitment to investment into improving life and opportunity in rural places,” Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, told reporters on a press call Tuesday.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will distribute the funds across several program areas, including:

  • $2 billion across 99 rural economic development projects in nine states and Puerto Rico
  •  $1.7 billion for climate change mitigation and 81 conservation projects
  • $1.1 billion in just over 100 loans and grants for infrastructure upgrades
  • $274 million for high-speed internet
  • $145 million for renewable energy in rural communities.

Biden and Vilsack will deliver afternoon remarks at Dutch Creek Farms in Northfield, Minnesota, where the family-run operation grows corn and soybeans and raises hogs.

Dutch Creek’s owners have “used several climate-smart agriculture techniques to make their farm more sustainable, including growing crops that naturally sequester carbon and improve soil quality, farming in a way that limits soil disturbance, and creating riparian buffers to protect nearby waterways from pollutants,” according to the White House.

Biden is scheduled to participate in an evening campaign reception in Minneapolis, according to the White House schedule.

]]>
Tuberville blockade on military nominees could be evaded by tweak in U.S. Senate rules https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/tuberville-blockade-on-military-nominees-could-be-evaded-by-tweak-in-u-s-senate-rules/ Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:15:05 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?post_type=briefs&p=17578

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, has been refusing to join other senators in the routine promotion of large groups of military nominees through a quick unanimous consent process (Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats are mulling a strategy to bypass Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s months-long hold on hundreds of military promotions in protest of a Pentagon abortion policy that was authorized in the aftermath of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The Alabama Republican has been refusing to join other senators in the routine action of promoting large groups of military nominees through a quick unanimous consent process.

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, is drafting a resolution to temporarily change Senate rules and allow time-saving roll call votes on large blocs of nominees rather than having to bring them to the floor one by one. The proposal was first reported by Punchbowl News.

In September, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer brought three of the hundreds of nominees to the floor for a roll call vote, including Gen. Charles Q. Brown to be chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As of Thursday, 378 nominees are stalled, according to the Pentagon. That number could grow to 650 by the end of the year if Tuberville does not lift the blanket hold.

“We have to get our personnel confirmed because it’s an extraordinary readiness issue,” Reed told States Newsroom Thursday. “It’s getting worse given the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine. And so there’ll be an effort to move the resolution.”

The resolution text is not yet finished, but it’s expected to head to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration as early as next week, a congressional aide said.

Among the military promotions blocked by Tuberville are Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman nominated to lead the U.S. Navy, and General David W. Allvin, nominee to be the next Air Force chief of staff.

Tuberville likened Reed’s idea to an attempt to “burn down the Senate.”

“It makes no sense. When you’re in the minority, whether Democrat or Republican, it’s the only power you have to get the other group’s attention,” he told reporters Thursday. “If they do away with this, we might as well stay at home, or the minority stay at home, because (the majority) can get anything done they want.”

“You can’t overlook the minority. You got to give them a little bit of voice, and this would take it away,” said Tuberville, who also sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The rule change, if adopted, would sunset at the end of the 118th Congress, according to the congressional aide.

Whether the proposal would gain enough support to pass the upper chamber is unclear.

The bill would need 60 votes to clear a procedural vote before heading to the floor. Democrats have a slim majority in the 51-49 split Senate, as the three independents caucus with Democrats.

Defense abortion policy

Tuberville’s blockade has been in protest of a Department of Defense policy that grants leave and travel allowances for service members seeking abortions in areas of the country where it remains legal.

Tuberville maintains the department’s policy is illegal. The Pentagon and Biden administration categorically refute that claim.

The Pentagon announced the policy less than a year after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion. The court’s decision triggered a patchwork of state-by-state abortion laws.

In September 2022, the RAND Corporation, a think tank that has long produced defense research, released a study showing that 80,000 active-duty female troops are based in states where legislatures enacted full or partial bans.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

]]>
Mike Johnson of Louisiana elected speaker of the U.S. House after three weeks of stalemate https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/25/mike-johnson-of-louisiana-elected-speaker-of-the-u-s-house-after-three-weeks-of-stalemate/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/25/mike-johnson-of-louisiana-elected-speaker-of-the-u-s-house-after-three-weeks-of-stalemate/#respond Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:00:43 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17558

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., left, shakes hands with Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., as the House of Representatives holds an election for a new speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 25, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Wednesday voted for Louisiana’s Mike Johnson as speaker in a chamber that has been frozen for more than three weeks after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted.

In a 220-209 party-line vote, all Republicans present backed Johnson, 51, a strongly conservative lawyer who represents northwest Louisiana’s 4th District. All Democrats present voted for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

Former President Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential race, immediately congratulated Johnson on social media, declaring that he will be a “GREAT ‘SPEAKER.’”

As Trump contested the 2020 election, Johnson was one of more than 100 House Republicans who voted to block Pennsylvania and Arizona’s presidential results following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In advance of the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, Johnson also led a statement with 36 fellow Republicans outlining opposition to the Electoral College results in Georgia and Michigan as well.

Following Wednesday’s vote for speaker, Johnson quickly scheduled a vote on a resolution in support of Israel.

“We stand at a very dangerous time. I’m stating the obvious, we all know that. The world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world,” said Johnson, the first House speaker from Louisiana.

Working with Democrats

Johnson, who was praised by his colleagues for unifying a fractured and divided GOP conference, will now need to seek the cooperation of Democrats as Congress risks another partial government shutdown in less than a month.

“I’ve known Mike since I was in the state House. He’s an incredibly hard worker, very passionate about this country. And we have a very similar approach to getting our country back on track,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana — an unsuccessful candidate for speaker — said following Johnson’s election.

Johnson, who does not have a strong bipartisan track record, will be tasked with working with the Democratic-controlled Senate on a quickly approaching Nov.17 government funding deadline to prevent a government shutdown, and critical legislation such as the recent nearly $106 billion supplemental request from the Biden administration to fund Ukraine, Israel and global aid and U.S. border security.

“I look forward to meeting with Speaker Johnson soon to discuss the path forward to avoid a government shutdown,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a statement following Johnson’s election.

“When I meet with him, I will convey that bipartisanship is the only way we can deliver results for the American people. The only way to avoid a government shutdown, pass critical supplemental funding, and deliver common-sense investments to the American people is bipartisanship.”

Nominating speeches

Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York nominated Johnson, saying the conservative congressman “epitomizes what it means to be a leader.”

“Today is the day that House Republicans will humbly look in our hearts and elect Mike Johnson as speaker of the people’s House,” Stefanik said.

Democratic Conference Chair Pete Aguilar of California nominated Jeffries, calling him a “far contrast from who Republicans nominated.”

“The most pressing needs of everyday Americans are his North Star,” Aguilar said.

The GOP’s weeks-long search for a new speaker “has been about one thing, this has been about who can appease Donald Trump,” Aguilar said.

The House had been without a speaker for 22 days.

Johnson’s record 

Johnson has voted against several recent bipartisan pieces of legislation such as the infrastructure lawa gun safety bill signed into law and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 

During his work in Congress, he’s opposed reinstating a pre-clearance section of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the federal government should not get involved in local elections.

He’s railed against the Department of Justice, criticizing Attorney General Merrick Garland for a memo that outlined concerns about violence at school board meetings at the height of the pandemic, when many schools implemented masking requirements.

Johnson also led a successful resolution designed to draw attention to incidents of vandalism and arson at anti-abortion pregnancy centers and other anti-abortion organizations.

Johnson, with his legal experience, has spent most of his time in Congress working on the Judiciary Committee, although he also serves on Armed Services. He’ll now have to pass legislation from agriculture to defense to foreign policy, while also undertaking massive fundraising to help expand Republicans’ majority. He also sits on the newly formed Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. 

Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma said he’s not concerned about Johnson’s lack of experience in agriculture policy, as Congress works to pass a massive five-year farm bill that touches everything from food nutrition to providing crop insurance for farmers to establishing conservation benefits.

“Agriculture is very important in Republican districts and very important to consumers all around the world,” Lucas said. “I would say this is just one of those issues where we see maturity out of what I believe is a mature speaker.”

For the past year, Johnson has led a panel on limited federal government, where during one hearing he argued that parents should not be allowed to let their transgender children have access to gender-affirming care. Johnson’s home state of Louisiana allows for a ban on gender-affirming care for youth. 

Rising through the ranks

Johnson, who was elected to an open seat in Congress in 2016, has quickly ascended the ranks, serving as the chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, and holding a position as vice chair of the Republican Policy Conference.

Johnson has a robust though not perfect conservative record, earning a rating of 92% for his entire time in Congress from the American Conservative Union. 

Johnson, who was the fourth GOP nominee for the speakership, will have to walk a tightrope while establishing a relationship with the White House and wrangling in those same far-right members who ousted McCarthy in early October.

Those who voted to throw out McCarthy gathered on the steps of Capitol Hill, and praised Johnson’s election as speaker.

“We have a guy who is honest, who’s going to tell the truth, and will be trustworthy not just in the (Republican) conference, but in the House,” said South Carolina’s Nancy Mace, who voted with seven Republicans to strip McCarthy of his position.

Florida’s Matt Gaetz, who brought the motion to vacate McCarthy to the floor, said that he was pleased with Johnson’s plan to pass all 12 appropriation bills separately.

“He is going to drive us to single-subject spending bills,” Gaetz said. “That is aligned with what we’ve been fighting for this entire Congress.”

Following Johnson’s candidacy for speaker, he released a Dear Colleague letter outlining his legislative priorities for government funding, passing the five-year farm bill reauthorization, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization and an annual defense policy bill.

In the letter, he supported a continuing resolution, or a CR, that would extend government funding until either Jan. 15 or April 15, while the House continues to work on the 12 appropriations bills.

“I am confident we can work together to accomplish that objective quickly, in a manner that delivers on our principled commitments to rein in wasteful spending, and put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility,” he wrote in his letter.

In his letter, Johnson said he wants that CR so “the Senate cannot jam the House with a Christmas omnibus.”

Johnson voted against the last CR. The Senate is currently taking up a minibus of three spending bills.

Johnson, Biden and Trump

President Joe Biden congratulated Johnson in an official White House statement Wednesday.

“As I said when this process began, whoever the Speaker is, I will seek to work with them in good faith on behalf of the American people,” Biden said. “That’s a principle I have always held to, and that I’ve acted on – delivering major bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, outcompeting China, gun reform, and veterans care.”

“The American people have made clear that they expect House Republicans to work with me and with Senate Democrats to govern across the aisle – to protect our urgent national security interests and grow our economy for the middle class,” Biden continued.

As speaker, Johnson will also be tasked with certifying the electoral votes for the 2024 presidential election, and he’s already drawn criticism from the president’s campaign arm.

In a statement from the Biden-Harris 2024 re-election campaign, spokesperson Ammar Moussa said that Johnson’s “ascension to the speakership cements the extreme MAGA takeover of the House Republican Conference.”

The 2024 presidential election has been a strong undercurrent of the speaker’s race.

On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump praised Johnson’s victory, writing “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

One Republican, Ken Buck of Colorado, who criticized many of the candidates, especially Jordan, for amplifying falsehoods about the 2020 election, said that Johnson leading an amicus brief questioning election results was different from taking part in the 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.

“What he did was he went to the courts,” Buck said of Johnson. “That’s what the courts are set up for. It’s absolutely appropriate.”

Trump’s praise for Johnson’s election came a day after he admonished the House GOP’s previous choice for speaker, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, warning Republicans that electing him would be a “tragic mistake.”

Not able to convince members of the far right, Emmer, of Minnesota, did not call for a floor vote on his candidacy and dropped from the race after roughly four hours.

Johnson ran twice for the speaker’s gavel, first announcing his run last weekend after the GOP conference voted to toss aside Ohio’s Jim Jordan after he continued to lose Republican support with each vote for his nomination to lead the lower chamber.

Jordan was the second Republican nominee for the speakership following Scalise, who withdrew from the race.

Emmer, the No. 3 Republican, emerged Tuesday as the GOP’s third nominee to lead the House.

Emmer was one of the few candidates running for speaker who voted to certify the 2020 presidential election results.

“​​I firmly believe that with House Republicans now united and ready to get back to work, as our new speaker elect said, our best days still lie ahead,” Emmer said in a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

Samantha Dietel contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/25/mike-johnson-of-louisiana-elected-speaker-of-the-u-s-house-after-three-weeks-of-stalemate/feed/ 0
Emmer nominated for U.S. House speaker but drops out after Trump opposition https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/emmer-nominated-for-u-s-house-speaker-but-trump-opposition-could-doom-his-bid/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/emmer-nominated-for-u-s-house-speaker-but-trump-opposition-could-doom-his-bid/#respond Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:10:18 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17541

U.S. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., right, and Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., arrive to a House GOP candidates forum where congressmen who are running for speaker of the House presented their platforms in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 24, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans Tuesday voted to tap Minnesota’s Tom Emmer as speaker following five rounds of ballots — but Emmer quit the race just four hours later, after he was attacked by the GOP’s most powerful figure, former President Donald Trump.

After beating six candidates, Emmer, the No. 3 Republican, faced an uphill battle to coalesce more than 20 hard-right Republican holdouts loyal to Trump, who took to social media shortly after the vote to warn that electing Emmer would be a “tragic mistake.”

“He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA,” Trump, also a 2024 candidate for president, wrote about Emmer on his site, Truth Social. “He is totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters.”

Emmer, 62, who represents a safe GOP district that includes parts of the western and northern Twin Cities suburbs, the city of St. Cloud and rural areas in between, had continued to meet with holdouts on Tuesday afternoon following the closed-door conference vote.

Emmer quickly left the meeting later Tuesday, dodging reporters chasing after him. He declined to comment before entering a black car. Multiple media reports said he dropped out a short time later.

With Emmer out, Republicans will have to begin their nomination process anew and it was unclear how that would proceed.

Emmer would have had to get nearly all of the 221 Republican votes on the House floor, as all Democrats are expected to vote for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. In the final secret ballot, Emmer earned 117 GOP votes, a long way from the 217 needed for the speaker’s gavel if all Republicans are present and voting.

In a roll call conference vote, again behind closed doors, on whether a member would support him on the floor, Emmer’s support grew to 186, according to several lawmakers in the meeting.

Several Republicans leaving Tuesday’s meeting, such as Reps. Steve Womack of Arkansas and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, acknowledged that Emmer did not have the votes needed to become speaker, but still remained hopeful that Emmer could narrow that gap.

Womack said that because the conference had a roll call ballot, Emmer can see which Republicans were holdouts.

“I expect that Tom would want to meet with the individuals that are not calling his name and see if there is something he can say or do that could bring them around and help shore up their requisite 217,” Womack said. “If he can’t do that, then he’s got to make a decision as to whether he goes to the floor.”

Womack added that there are some members that will always be against Emmer, but he did not name them.

“What I just saw in that room illustrates to me that there are some people that are pretty well dug in and are not going to support the current designee,” he said.

For example, Georgia’s Rick Allen, had already stated he will never vote for Emmer because the Minnesota Republican voted to codify same-sex marriage, according to CNN.

Johnson said that Emmer was working on flipping those holdouts.

“People with concerns are coming forward, and he’s taking them head on,” Johnson said.

When asked how many members voted against Emmer in the roll call vote, Mike Waltz of Florida said “too many.”

Third GOP nominee

Emmer was the third Republican nominee for speaker.

The first, Louisiana’s Steve Scalise never brought his nomination for a floor vote and the second, Ohio’s Jim Jordan, was tossed aside by the party after his third and final unsuccessful floor vote for the speaker’s gavel.

The House has been without a speaker for 21 days.

Emmer, who serves in GOP leadership as the Republican whip, had the endorsement of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but would have had to court members and allies of the far-right House Freedom Caucus who are aligned closely with Trump.

On Monday, Emmer posted a video in which he said he has always “gotten along” with Trump, who is also the current GOP front-runner in the 2024 presidential election.

In a Monday campaign stop in New Hampshire, Trump was asked if he’d endorse Emmer. The former president said he’d “always gotten along with” Emmer, but said he was trying to allow House Republicans to choose their own leader.

Emmer posted a video clip of the appearance to X, saying as speaker, he would continue the pair’s “strong working relationship.”

However, by Tuesday, Trump had posted about his opposition to Emmer on his social media site.

Emmer was also one of the few candidates running for the speakership who voted to certify the 2020 election results.

The speaker campaign

On Monday night, as they tried again to elect a speaker, House Republicans heard pitches from eight of their colleagues who had filed by a Sunday deadline. Pennsylvania’s Dan Meuser was also a candidate but dropped out in the middle of the closed-door candidate forum.

Those GOP lawmakers who ran for the speaker’s gavel included Reps. Gary Palmer of AlabamaByron Donalds of Florida, Austin Scott of Georgia, Mike Johnson of LouisianaJack Bergman of Michigan, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma and Pete Sessions of Texas.

Early Tuesday, Scalise, the House majority leader, said the goal is for Republicans to unify behind a nominee and get back to legislative work that has been stalled since McCarthy was ousted earlier this month. 

“There’s a lot of work to do,” Scalise said. “All of these things are bills that are ready to go that we want to move.”

Whoever becomes speaker will be tasked with a quickly approaching Nov. 17 deadline for government funding and a nearly $106 billion supplemental aid request from the White House for Ukraine, Israel and global aid and U.S. border security. Emmer will also have to lead in moving must-pass legislation such as the annual defense bill and five-year reauthorization of the farm bill.

On top of legislative duties the new speaker will have to balance striking deals with a White House and Senate controlled by Democrats while also fundraising and protecting vulnerable Republicans and expanding the House’s slim GOP majority in the 2024 elections.

McCarthy said he wants to see the party move beyond its deep fractures and that there must be “consequences” for the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats to oust him.

“It’s frustrating because it’s just a few, these eight, working with all the Democrats to ruin the reputation of the Republicans, but we’ll earn it back,” the California Republican said.

Five ballots for Emmer

Republicans went through five secret ballots on Tuesday to get to a nominee. Some candidates withdrew their names prior to voting to speed the process along, such as Palmer and Meuser.

Sessions was dropped in the first round of ballots; Bergman in the second round; Scott in the third round; Hern in the fourth round; and Johnson in the fifth round. Donalds withdrew in the fourth round.

Because Republicans have struggled to rally behind one candidate, Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska asked all speaker candidates and GOP lawmakers to sign a unity pledge.

But there were clear signs of dissent.

For the first four rounds of secret ballots, six lawmakers voted either present or for others besides the announced candidates, stirring concern that a candidate may not be able to gain the support of the majority of the conference on the floor.

Bill Huizenga of Michigan said as the final ballot was ongoing, he had a message for those Republicans who voted present: “We got to figure this out. Stop voting present, stop voting for other people. We have two candidates.”

One of those who voted present, Troy Nehls of Texas, said that Emmer had no chance of becoming speaker and that as Republicans, “we are, again, back to where we started.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said Emmer asked the holdouts to remain in the room after an up-or-down roll call vote to discuss differences.

“So when I left, several people who voted different than Emmer were at the microphone,” he said.

Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri said she hoped Emmer’s approach would rebuild trust among the conference.

“This is really good because it also does away with this feeling that there are any kind of backroom deals going on or that people are, you know, getting their wish lists,” Wagner said, referring to one-on-one meetings that other speaker candidates have held.

In January, McCarthy made a secret handshake deal with far right conservatives before he won on a 15th ballot.

Mario Díaz-Balart of Florida said that while Donalds was his first choice, he wanted to unify around Emmer whom he described as “honorable.”

As whip “he has the relationships. If he can’t pull it together then we’re running into some very, very difficult times,” he said.

House Democrats continued to criticize the GOP Tuesday.

“Chaos and dysfunction continue to be the order of the day in the House Republican majority. Today is day 21 without a speaker, and the other side is back to square one,” Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said at a press conference.

Emmer finances, fundraising

Known in Congress as a promoter of cryptocurrency, Emmer’s own finances are remarkably traditional, according to personal financial reports required of members of Congress.

In his most recent annual report, filed in May, Emmer listed only one asset, an investment account worth between $15,000 and $50,000, and one liability, a mortgage of between $100,000 and $250,000.

He listed no stock holdings, transactions, gifts or other finances — a rarity for congressional financial disclosures that are often more complicated.

A prolific fundraiser as the former head of the House Republican campaign operation, Emmer has raised millions from the cryptocurrency sector and promoted the technology in the House, where he sits on the Financial Services Committee.

He raised $2 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee in the 2022 cycle from the political action committee of Ryan Salame, the former co-CEO of FTX, a crypto firm that went bankrupt after serious allegations of fraud.

Immediately following that scandal, Emmer maintained that the FTX example should not undermine the promise of cryptocurrency itself.

For the current campaign cycle, Emmer has raised a combined $3.7 million for his own campaign and for his leadership PAC. He’s raised $230,000 from contributors in the securities and investment industry — more than any industry other than “retired,” according to the nonprofit campaign spending tracking group Open Secrets.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/emmer-nominated-for-u-s-house-speaker-but-trump-opposition-could-doom-his-bid/feed/ 0
U.S. House Republicans mull eight new candidates for speaker in advance of votes https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/u-s-house-republicans-mull-eight-new-candidates-for-speaker-in-advance-of-votes/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/u-s-house-republicans-mull-eight-new-candidates-for-speaker-in-advance-of-votes/#respond Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:08:57 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17524

U.S. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., a candidate in the race for speaker of the House, arrives at a House Republican candidates forum where those running presented their platforms in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 23, 2023, in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans Monday night gathered behind closed doors to hear the pitches of eight candidates for the speaker’s gavel, as the chamber approaches three weeks without a speaker.

Monday’s nearly three-hour meeting was meant to produce a leading GOP candidate, so that when Republicans vote behind closed doors on Tuesday, there will be a new speaker designate who can be brought to the House floor for a vote. Ohio’s Rep. Jim Jordan on Friday was cast aside by the conference after he failed to gain enough support on the floor.

“We heard tonight, a really strong vision laid out by each of them. Everybody has a lot of the same goals in mind,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who was briefly the nominee two weeks ago before bowing out. “We need to get moving on our agenda.”

The eight Republican men who have declared their candidacy for speaker of the House are Reps. Gary Palmer of AlabamaByron Donalds of Florida, Austin Scott of Georgia, Mike Johnson of LouisianaJack Bergman of Michigan, Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma and Pete Sessions of Texas.

Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania declared himself a candidate on Sunday but he dropped out of the race during the closed-door meeting Monday night.

“I came in late. I have other commitments that I want to adhere to, largely leading President Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania. And, we have great candidates,” Meuser said.

Meuser said former President Donald Trump supported his decision to exit the speaker race “based upon the situations at hand and with some of the other members that are in so as we get a strong speaker,” but stopped short of endorsing another candidate.

Majority vote

According to House Republican rules, any nominee must get a majority of the vote of the conference in the closed-door meeting. Because there are eight candidates, it could take a while before Republicans rally around a speaker designate.

If none receives a majority during the first ballot, the candidate with the least votes would be removed from the ballot and another round of voting would begin.

With 221 House Republicans, a candidate needs the support of 111 to become the speaker nominee in the conference vote. However, the nominee would likely need 217 votes on the floor if all Republicans are present and voting.

The GOP’s speaker designate can only afford to lose a handful of votes on the House floor, as all Democrats are expected to vote for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York for speaker.

Any Republican speaker will have to walk a delicate line negotiating with the White House and Democratic-controlled Senate on must-pass legislation like an annual defense bill, and aggressively fundraise for the Republican Party as well as protect vulnerable Republicans and expand their slim House majority in the upcoming 2024 elections.

The next speaker of the House will also be tasked with an upcoming Nov. 17 deadline on government funding, as well as nearly $106 billion in supplemental aid request from the White House for Israel, Ukraine and U.S. border security.

Unity pledge

House Republicans have been unable to pick a successful candidate to replace former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted in early October by eight Republicans voting with all Democrats. Following his removal, McCarthy said he would not run again, but has said the decision is ultimately up to the Republican conference.

Jordan brought his candidacy to the floor three times. With each vote, he continued to lose GOP support.

Following Jordan’s losses, House Republicans held a secret vote in which Jordan failed to garner enough votes from his fellow GOP lawmakers to continue as the nominee.

The first speaker candidate, Louisiana’s Scalise, never called a floor vote, stepping down a day after he was selected as the nominee after he realized he couldn’t reach the 217 votes needed to become speaker.

To avoid continued struggles to come together in unity behind a candidate, Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood unveiled a unity pledge Friday, urging his Republican colleagues to sign and give their support for the speaker designate, regardless of who becomes the candidate.

“I wanted to start this process, this election, with us understanding that we have to be unified to the end of it,” Flood said to reporters.

As of Monday night, all eight candidates signed the pledge, Flood said.

Damage to GOP

Several Republicans, such as Reps. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, said that Republicans ultimately have to pick a speaker because the last few weeks have been damaging to the party.

“Hopefully, small groups of members who have stood in the way of us getting work done in the past understand how incredibly damaging the last four weeks have been,” Johnson said, referring to the beginning of the month when McCarthy was removed.

Norman argued that “there is no perfect speaker,” and that Republicans need to unify behind a candidate.

Following the Republican candidate forum, House Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma said that all the candidates were good and that he hopes a new speaker can be picked quickly.

Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said he supports Flood’s unity pledge.

“I think anybody asking for our votes should commit to supporting whoever wins. That’s the only way we’re gonna govern, if we become a majority,” Guthrie said on his way into the candidate forum.

“Anybody who gets 51% at the end of the day, we walk across the street, hold hands and vote for that person … And that’s the way it should be,” said Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, who sparked McCarthy’s ouster earlier this month, said he thought the candidates did “a great job” in the forum.

“I was most heartened by those who wanted to advance single-subject spending bills rather than link disparate issues like Ukraine funding and Israel funding together,” the Florida Republican said.

Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana said she’s pleased to see “competition and vibrancy.”

“I think it’s important for us to govern, but I truly think it’s a good process. This institution is so broken, so only crisis maybe will help, for the American people, to make us work,” Spartz said.

She added that she has “concerns” with some of the candidates, not specifying who, but said she wanted “to give people a chance.”

Whichever candidate gets a majority of the vote will coordinate with North Carolina’s Patrick McHenry, who has been serving as speaker pro tempore, to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote.

McCarthy handpicked him for the role under a procedure established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to ensure continuity of government. It’s unclear what legislative authority McHenry has, and House Republicans last week punted on adopting a resolution that would temporarily allow McHenry to move legislation.

A range of experience 

Of all the candidates, Minnesota’s Emmer is the highest ranking Republican.

Emmer has the advantage of already being a member of House GOP leadership and party insider, with connections as a former National Republican Congressional Committee head.

But Emmer, the current House majority whip, is facing criticism from the far right. Emmer did not support Trump’s false 2020 election victory claims, and voted to certify the Electoral College count.

However, he did sign onto a lawsuit out of Texas challenging election results in swing states that Biden won in 2020.

Like Emmer, Palmer also sits in a GOP House leadership position, as chair of an advisory committee known as the Republican Policy Committee.

Hern, who at one point owned two dozen McDonald’s franchises, chairs the Republican Study Committee, a body that has promoted a conservative agenda among House GOP lawmakers since the 1970s.

Hern said the closed-door meeting had a good turnout and he was happy to answer questions from his GOP colleagues. He said they asked “questions of concern about where our conference currently is and where it needs to go.”

Donalds, who belongs to the far-right House Freedom Caucus, received floor nominations for speaker last week and in January during the course of more than a dozen ballots that finally declared McCarthy the winner.

Donalds, first elected in 2020, defended his legislative record, pointing to his time as a Florida state legislator.

“I know the legislative process,” he said. “I’ve worked with our colleagues up here to get a lot of policies done.”

Donalds added that he spoke with Trump but did not answer reporters who asked if the former president would endorse him.

“The president is going to watch us do our process,” he said. “I think he’s gonna be happy with who’s gonna be the next speaker of the House.”

The former president did endorse Jordan, who co-founded the House Freedom Caucus, and struggled to win the support of more centrist Republicans. Members who voted against Jordan also received death threats and other threatening messages from Jordan allies.

Scott briefly challenged Jordan but lost an internal secret ballot on Oct. 13. Scott is vice chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, where he chairs the panel on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit. He is also the co-chair of the Congressional Crop Insurance Caucus.

He said that many of the candidates running are similar and “there are no personal differences between us.”

“It’s just a matter of being able to do things and get the ball rolling in the right direction,” Scott said. “I’m committed to a House that operates and functions.”

Scott added that he did not specify a plan for government spending to Republicans, but “laid out a path forward for us as a conference.”

Johnson chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government, and chairs the Congressional Long Range Strike Caucus.

Bergman, a former lieutenant general in the U.S. Marines and commercial airline pilot, does not hold a leadership position on any committees or caucuses, but he does sit on three House committees, including Armed Services and Veterans Affairs.

Sessions, who has served in Congress for over two decades and was a former head of the NRCC, currently sits on two House committees.

“We’re gonna find out what people think,” Sessions said about whether Republicans would support his nomination.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/24/u-s-house-republicans-mull-eight-new-candidates-for-speaker-in-advance-of-votes/feed/ 0
Jim Jordan’s bid to be U.S. House speaker ends after rejection by GOP in closed meeting https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/20/jim-jordan-again-rejected-in-bid-for-u-s-house-speaker-and-gop-struggles-to-regroup/ https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/20/jim-jordan-again-rejected-in-bid-for-u-s-house-speaker-and-gop-struggles-to-regroup/#respond Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:46:16 +0000 https://missouriindependent.com/?p=17475

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, right, Republican speaker nominee, talks to his Chief of Staff Kevin Eichinger and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., after the House of Representatives failed to elevate Jordan to speaker of the House for the third time in the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 20, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Ohio Republican Jim Jordan is no longer the Republican nominee for speaker of the U.S. House.

Shortly after a failed floor vote Friday on Jordan’s bid, Republicans held a closed-door meeting where Jordan failed to garner enough votes from his fellow GOP lawmakers to stay in the race as their nominee.

“I told the (Republican) conference it was an honor to be their speaker designee,” Jordan said to reporters.

The floor vote was Jordan’s third attempt this week to win sufficient support from Republicans, who hold a slim majority in the House.

“We’ll have to go back to the drawing board,” former Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters.

Louisiana’s Steve Scalise said that Republicans will pick a new nominee and come back to their quandary on Monday.

North Carolina’s Patrick McHenry, who has been serving as speaker pro tempore, told reporters that the plan is to have a floor vote for speaker on Tuesday.

A candidate forum for a new speaker designee will be held Monday night at 6:30 p.m. Eastern. Republican Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma told reporters shortly after Jordan’s rejection that he would run.

“I just voted for my good friend Jim Jordan to stay as our Speaker Designate, but the conference has determined that he will no longer hold that title. We just had two speaker designates go down. We must unify and do it fast. I’ve spoken to every member of the conference over the last few weeks. We need a different type of leader who has a proven track record of success, which is why I’m running for Speaker of the House,” Hern wrote on X Friday afternoon.

Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, who briefly challenged but lost to Jordan in conference on Oct. 13, said he will enter the race again.

“If we are going to be the majority we need to act like the majority, and that means we have to do the right things the right way. I supported and voted for Rep. Jim Jordan to be the Speaker of the House. Now that he has withdrawn I am running again to be the Speaker of the House,” Scott wrote on X.

Rep. Jack Bergman, who had been mulling a bid, said Friday afternoon that his “hat is in the ring.”

“And I feel confident I can win the votes where others could not. I have no special interests to serve; I’m only in this to do what’s best for our Nation and to steady the ship for the 118th Congress,” he wrote on X.

Reports on X from news media indicated that Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Byron Donalds of Florida will also run.

‘Swamp at work’

Florida’s Matt Gaetz, who introduced the measure to oust McCarthy more than two weeks ago and now supports Jordan, called the internal vote result “outrageous.”

“I think that was the swamp at work,” Gaetz told States Newsroom while entering a U.S. House basement elevator after the meeting. “The most popular Republican in the country was just knifed in a secret anonymous ballot in the bowels of the Capitol.”

Jordan lost more Republican votes on his third ballot Friday than on the previous two, in a 194-210 vote, bringing the totals to 25 GOP defectors. All Democrats present also opposed his candidacy, backing Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The successful candidate needed a majority of the 429 members voting on Friday.

Friday marked the 17th day the U.S. House has been without a speaker and unable to conduct business.

GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Kean of New Jersey and Marcus Molinaro of New York voted against Jordan Friday, adding three to the Ohio Republican’s earlier deficit.

The third vote came as the White House sent a nearly $106 billion supplemental aid package to Congress early Friday for funding for Israel, Ukraine and U.S. border security, and as lawmakers have less than 30 days until government funding expires.

Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has earned a reputation as a conservative firebrand and co-founded the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Several members who voted against him have received death threats from supporters of the Ohio congressman.

Jordan was one of more than 100 Republicans who objected to the 2020 election results following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

More ballots?

Hours before the third vote, Jordan held a press conference where he indicated that he was willing to insist on multiple ballots to be elected speaker.

“There’s been multiple rounds of votes for speaker before,” he said, referring to McCarthy, who went 15 rounds before he was elected in January.

Those votes could also spill into days ahead, Jordan said, when “our plan this weekend is to get a speaker elected.”

But the conference decided differently after the failed floor vote.

Among the Republicans who voted against Jordan Friday were Don Bacon of Nebraska, Vern Buchanan of Florida, Ken Buck of Colorado, Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, Anthony D’Esposito of New York, Mario Díaz-Balart of Florida, Jake Ellzey of Texas, Drew Ferguson of Georgia, Fitzpatrick, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Carlos Giménez of Florida, Tony Gonzales of Texas, Kay Granger of Texas, John James of Michigan, Kean, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Jennifer Kiggans of Virginia, Nick LaLota of New York, Mike Lawler of New York, Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, Molinaro, John Rutherford of Florida, Simpson, Pete Stauber of Minnesota and Steve Womack of Arkansas.

Jordan lost two votes due to absences: Reps. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, who arrived in Israel Friday morning on a fact-finding trip, and Wesley Hunt of Texas.

On the Democratic side, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Donald Payne of New Jersey were absent.

Speaker pro tem

House Republicans also punted a resolution Thursday that would have temporarily empowered McHenry as elected speaker pro tempore in order to pass critical legislation such as funding for the government, an annual defense bill and supplemental aid to Ukraine and Israel.

There is much debate about how much authority McHenry has in the role of designated speaker pro tem that was established after 9/11 to ensure continuity of government in the event of a catastrophic attack.

Following the third ballot, McHenry said flipping those votes is “a serious challenge that we’re going to have to work through.”

“That’s why we’re gonna have a conference meeting,” he said.

McCarthy, who was ousted in early October, delivered the nominating speech for Jordan on the floor Friday.

“He is straightforward, honest and reliable. That is who Jim Jordan is,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy defended Jordan in the wake of criticism of Jordan’s dearth of legislation passed on the House floor.

“If we measure lawmakers by how many bills have their name on it, we are using the wrong measuring stick,” McCarthy said. “Some of (the) members I know with the most bills to their name are the most selfish. Jim Jordan on the other hand is one of the most selfless members I’ve known.”

Rep. Katherine Clark, who nominated Jeffries, of New York, called Jordan “a true threat to our democracy and our Constitution.”

“We need a speaker who will govern through consensus, not conflict. We need a speaker worthy of wielding that gavel, a leader who will defend democracy, not degrade it” said Clark, of Massachusetts. “More than ever we need proven, patriotic, people-first leadership, and that is why I am proud to nominate Hakeem Jeffries as speaker of the House.”

‘Clear and present danger’

Before the third ballot, Jeffries held a press conference where he warned of the dangers of electing Jordan as speaker of the House.

“Jim Jordan is a clear and present danger to our democracy,” Jeffries said, adding that Jordan has amplified falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.

He said that Democrats “have repeatedly made clear we want to find a bipartisan path forward at every step of the way.”

But he stopped short of naming a Republican candidate that Democrats would support.

One of the Jordan GOP holdouts, Díaz-Balart, said he thinks it’s time for the Republican conference to find a new candidate for speaker.

“It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t have the votes,” Díaz-Balart said of Jordan.

He added that he believed Jordan will continue to lose Republican support if he continues to hold ballots. In the first ballot, Jordan lost 20 Republicans and in the second ballot he lost 22.

Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has backed Jordan, said he expects the conference to discuss if a vote should be held whether Republicans still support Jordan as their nominee.

“It’s the will of the (Republican) conference,” Massie said.

No speaker for weeks

Eight Republicans and all Democrats voted to oust California Republican McCarthy on Oct. 3, halting the lower chamber for the last 17 days.

The GOP conference has struggled to unify after numerous closed-door meetings and internal ballots.

Scalise initially garnered the nomination for the gavel but bowed out of the race a day later, even before calling a floor vote. The Louisiana Republican was not able to gain support from hard-right members and therefore would not have been able to reach the number of votes needed to win.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

]]>
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/20/jim-jordan-again-rejected-in-bid-for-u-s-house-speaker-and-gop-struggles-to-regroup/feed/ 0